Public Bill Committee

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Clause 20

Stop and question

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 18, in clause 20, page 16, line 11, leave out “necessary” and insert “reasonable”.—[Mr. Laurence Robertson.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Nicholas Winterton: I remind the Committee that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in clause 20, page 16, line 12, at end insert
‘, if he suspects that he may be able to provide information about a recent explosion or another recent incident endangering life, or the effects thereof.’.
No. 20, in clause 20, page 16, line 14, leave out ‘necessary’ and insert ‘reasonable’.
I think that, when the sitting adjourned this morning, the Minister was responding to an intervention from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I may have got that wrong, but I call the Minister anyway.

Paul Goggins: I suspect, Sir Nicholas, that the only person who can remember is the Hansard reporter, but we shall proceed anyway.
I think that I was finally about to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the word “necessary” was preferable to the word “reasonable”. Let me give an example of why “necessary” is the right word to use here. For instance, an officer could detain an individual, stop them to question them and ask them for details of their home address. After the individual gives some information, the officer may ask, “Well, what colour is your front door then?” When the person answers that question, the officer may then ask, “What street is the next street?” When the person answers, the officer must send someone to check whether that information is accurate. If it is accurate, the person will be released; if there are further grounds for questioning, the questioning will continue. In other words, that officer can detain that individual for as long as it is “necessary” to carry out those inquiries. “Necessary” is a more black-and-white, a more certain word than “reasonable”, which, as I suggested earlier, offers too much room for doubt and uncertainty.

Peter Bone: I am not following this argument, because what the Minister is really saying is that all previous legislation containing the word “reasonable”, which has long been accepted as the right word, is wrong.

Paul Goggins: I do not suggest that for a minute. The hon. Gentleman is playing a substantial role in the Committee’s deliberations, and I thank him for that.
“Reasonable” is the correct word in other circumstances, but we are discussing extreme circumstances, in which an officer has considerable concerns about a particular individual and perhaps needs to check certain information. It is important in those pressured circumstances that the officer has certainty, and the word “necessary” gives the degree of certainty that we feel is essential. There is a judgment to be made here. I began my remarks by saying that judging the difference between the word “reasonable” and the word “necessary” is a fine judgment, but we think that the word “necessary” is the right one here.
In conclusion, I would like to deal with the other amendment that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has tabled, which relates to limiting questioning to instances in which there was a suspicion that someone had information regarding an explosion or an incident that would endanger life. It would simply be impossible to conduct any kind of random stop-and-search operation if we were to accept that amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, if a threat is made against a particular meeting, building or event, it may be necessary for the Army or the police to mount some kind of surveillance operation, perhaps involving some rolling surveillance cordon. If they were not able, to some degree, to make a random selection of individuals, it would make that operation extremely difficult. Obviously, all such operations need to be carried out carefully, sensibly and sensitively, particularly in certain parts of the community, but we believe that the constraint that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would give would make it very difficult for the police and the Army to do their job.

Laurence Robertson: The wording of amendment No. 19 is lifted from elsewhere in the Bill, so the Government accept that such a situation is the only time that individuals can be stopped for this particular kind of questioning. Subsection (2) says:
“A member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty may stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him...about a recent explosion or another recent incident endangering life...what he knows about a person”.
That qualifies why individuals can be stopped under subsection (2). Subsection (1) does not actually state why the member of Her Majesty’s forces or the constable would want to stop that person; they could just stop them for no reason at all for as long as they feel necessary. I suggest that subsection (1) is at least badly worded, and probably worse than that.

Paul Goggins: I simply ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect, as I know he does, on the context in which we are moving the clause. We are moving to normalisation, under which part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 will be repealed, but we need specific powers in place to deal with some of the extreme situations with which the law enforcement and the security services have to deal.
I again draw on the experience of Whiterock. Officers have very little time to make judgments, decide and act to preserve law and order or detain people who may be responsible for lawlessness and worse. It is to deal with those extreme and pressing circumstances that we seek such powers. We have judged them necessary. I ask the hon. Gentleman, in assessing whether to support the clause, to bear in mind the context in which we are proposing it.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister used an interesting phrase when he said that the context was that wewere moving toward normalisation, but the word “necessary” is not normal in this context; the word “reasonable” is. I am afraid that he has done the reverse of selling the case to me.
On the reasonable test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, I came in by bus this morning, so I consider myself that reasonable man. Members in Committee yesterday probably did not think so, but that was a different matter. I have watched a video of Whiterock with the police, and it was a terrible situation. If a constable or member of Her Majesty’s forces needed to detain someone hurling rocks at the police—as some were—in order to question them about their identity and movements and if that person did not comply, I would think that the person questioning them would be entitled to detain them for a substantial amount of time. I would consider that reasonable. What I do not consider as moving toward normalisation is the insertion of the word “necessary”. It is open-ended and not generally accepted as a legal term, whereas “reasonable” most certainly is. Given that, I am sorry to tell the Minister that I am not happy with his explanation and that I will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in clause 20, page 16, line 25, after ‘to’, insert ‘six months imprisonment or’.
It is a real pleasure to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Nicholas, to take us through more clauses of an interesting Bill. With your leave, I apologise to my Committee colleagues, as I was called away to a meeting outside the House this morning and missed the exciting debate, particularly about the provisions concerning the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
My amendment relates to what I think is the proportionate punishment for not complying with a reasonable—in fact, as the Minister has now told us, necessary—provision for Her Majesty’s forces on duty to have certain powers of stop and question. The Minister, in response to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, reminded the Committee that the Government were attempting to deal with “extreme circumstances”, such as Whiterock, which was a vicious outbreak of rioting in September 2005 in Belfast that spilled over into my constituency of North Down. Yes, I am well aware of the nasty circumstances in Whiterock.
Let us consider what is in clause 20. Subsection (1) says:
“A member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable may stop a person for so long as is necessary”.
Subsection (2) adds:
“A member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty may stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him”
about very serious matters—
“(a) what he knows about a recent explosion or another recent incident endangering life”
or
“(b) what he knows about a person killed or injured in a recent explosion or incident”.
The member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty is not stopping the person to question them about bird watching or another light matter, but about serious issues— about a person killed or injured in a recent explosion or some other incident endangering life. However, in punishment for failing to stop to answer such questions—which the Minister has assured us are “necessary” bearing in mind the circumstances of,for example, Whiterock—for refusing to answer the questions or for failing to answer the questions to the best of his knowledge or ability, a person is merely “guilty of an offence” and liable
“to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”.
Roughly translated, that is about £5,000. Frankly, I do not think that that penalty is at all proportionate to the serious matters that a member of Her Majesty’s forces may stop and question a person about.
The intention of my amendment is, first, for the Minister to accept the amendment, which would be the best judgment. However, he might be unable to accept the amendment at this early juncture and might need a little time to reflect on how to get the provision right. I therefore urge him to make the punishment fit the crime and to be proportionate to the serious issues that he has drawn to the attention of the Committee when responding to earlier amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. With those words, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as ever, for probing and for scrutinising every aspect of the Bill. It is important that penalties are proportionate tothe offence. It is also important that penalties are consistent throughout the legislation. As set out in schedule 3, an offence of failing to stop is punishable by a fine up to level 5, the same penalty that we are proposing in clause 20.
The hon. Lady should consider that the clause deals specifically with the offence of failing to stop. It may be that a person refuses to stop because they have a grudge against the police or Army but, of course, it is important that there is a penalty for someone who fails to stop in whatever circumstances. A person may not have committed any offence or have any further information to offer but, even so, failing to stop would be an offence. If a person had committed a more serious offence, if they were actively engaged in violence or inciting violence and so on, they could be arrested by the police, taken away and placed in custody. There is no question that a person behaving unlawfully can be arrested under other legislation. Clause 20 deals merely with the offence of failing to stop.
I made it clear earlier in the debate that it may be necessary to use the powers to stop and question randomly. It may be that surveillance is drawn up on a particular event and that people are stopped and questioned randomly. In those circumstances, we regard the fine of up to level 5 to be proportionate for the simple offence of failing to stop. If a more serious offence is being committed—if people’s lives are endangered, or violence incited—it would be up to the police to arrest the individual involved and deal with them appropriately.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister confirm what the penalties are if we are talking about a constable in the Police Service of Northern Ireland? There is a question of consistency, because clause 20(1) refers to
“Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable”.
Will the Minister assure the Committee that the penalties for the offences of failing to reply, refusing to answer to the best of one’s ability or refusing to answer at all a question posed by a constable of the PSNI, and not merely a failure to stop, are punishable merely with a £5,000 fine?

Paul Goggins: They are, and we believe that the penalties are proportionate. However, if a person acted in a violent way to an officer or to a member of the public in the course of failing to stop, that would be a more serious, arrestable offence, which could carry a sentence of imprisonment. We regard the penalty as proportionate for the actual offence of failing tostop. Indeed, we have consistently applied that proportionality in the Bill. Clearly, such things are a matter of judgment, but we regard a fine of up to level 5 as appropriate for the simple offence of failing to stop, and that that is proportionate and consistent with other measures in the Bill.

Lady Hermon: The Minister has repeatedly implied, or has expressly said, that the only offence that can be committed under clause 20 is simply that of failing to stop. With the greatest respect to the Minister, and though I am about to disagree, the offences are listed in clause 20(3):
“A person commits an offence if he —
(a) fails to stop when required to do so...
(b) refuses to answer a question addressed to him, or”—

Paul Goggins: I have no quibble with the hon. Lady. Inadvertently, I was using the term “failure to stop” as shorthand for all that is contained in clause 20(3). She is entirely right.

Lady Hermon: As ever, and characteristically, the Minister is entirely gracious. He was paraphrasing and using shorthand, which he has acknowledged. He meant to say that there are various offences, because we have the conjunction “or” in clause 20(3). The offence is not only
“failing to stop when required to do so”
but
“refusing to answer a question addressed to him”
and failing to
“answer to the best of his knowledge and ability a question addressed to him”
about
“a recent explosion or another recent incident endangering life”
or “a person killed”.
I know that the Minister does not think that life is cheap in Northern Ireland. For an incident in which someone’s life is endangered or they are killed or injured, I would like to think that a corresponding term of imprisonment would be an alternative to the £5,000 fine.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Lady helps the Committee to get nearer to the point. If a police officer has evidence that an individual has carried out or been connected with a violent act such as the setting of explosives or some other heinous crime, the officer has the power to arrest that individual. Any obstruction would carry its own penalties. If the individual were found guilty of those more serious crimes, they would go to prison and rightly so. The provision relates simply to somebody who has failed to stop; they may be completely innocent of any other crime. We think that the fine is a sufficient, proportionate penalty. If there are grounds to believe that somebody has committed a more serious offence, they should be arrested and dealt with.

Lady Hermon: The Minister is as persuasive as ever, but he has highlighted a particular error in the drafting of clauses 20 and 22. I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to an ambiguity that gives rise to some confusion, which the Minister just inadvertently put his finger on. Clauses 20 and 22 both begin with the words:
“A member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable”.
The rest of clause 20 does not talk about a constable, however. My amendment attaches to subsection (2), which is exclusively about a member of Her Majesty’s forces. Clause 22, however, contains the two alternatives of a member of Her Majesty’s forces or a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and then deals only with the powers of one or the other. It is extremely confusing.
 The Minister has just assured the Committee that if a more serious offence has been committed and if the person resists or is violent towards the officer, the police constable can arrest the individual. Sorry, Minister: in clause 20(2), that is the power of
“Her Majesty’s forces on duty”.
Mercifully, we do not have joint patrolling. In the horrible, awful days of the killings and of hundreds of deaths in Northern Ireland, we had joint operations.
The Minister indicated that these provisions were brought forward to deal with the extreme situation of the loyalist rioting in Whiterock in Belfast in September 2005. We witnessed on our television screens those absolutely disgraceful pictures, which were flashed around the world. It was the worst possible publicity for Northern Ireland.
We are trying to move towards a more peaceful, stable Northern Ireland, but the drafting of clause 20 deals with a member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty on his own, not on a joint operation. He cannot turn to his PSNI colleague and say, “You can use your powers.”

Paul Goggins: I shall try to clarify the differences to which the hon. Lady has referred. Clause 20 refers to a
“member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable”
because when part 7of the Terrorism Act 2000 is repealed, neither will have the power to stop and question. If we look at clauses 21 and 22—I stray slightly, but only to make the point—we will see that they apply only to members of Her Majesty’s forces, because the police already have sufficient powers to carry out the actions that the clauses cover, whereas Her Majesty’s forces do not. An Army officer is not in a position to make an arrest, for example, and clause 21 will give him that power. That reinforces the point that our approach has been minimalist; we have identified the minimum powers necessary after July 2007 to have the wherewithal to maintain public order and deal with extreme circumstances.

Lady Hermon: I am absolutely fascinated by that response. If a police constable in Northern Ireland already has those powers and we therefore do not need to grant them through clause 20, why on earth does clause 20(1) include the word “constable”?
 Paul Goggins rose—

Lady Hermon: I see that the Minister wants to clarify yet again the confusion that he has caused.

Paul Goggins: I shall simply repeat what I said earlier. Once part 7 goes, neither the police nor the Army will have the powers that we seek to provide in clause 20. If we did not replace some of those powers for the Army, the police would still have the powers that clauses 21 and 22 seek to give the Army. However, we wish the Army to have the powers, too, so we look to do the minimum necessary.

Lady Hermon: Let me paraphrase what the Minister has just told the Committee. Owing to the lapse of other terrorist legislation, the police and the Army will not have powers. Therefore, under the legislation before us, we must give the Army powers, but the police will have powers under other legislation. That is a fair summary of what he has just said.
If that is true, will the Minister look carefully at the wording of clause 20? Subsection (1) refers to:
“A member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable”.
If a constable already has the powers, as the Minister has assured the Committee, there is no need for the clause to refer to a constable at all. He just said that the provisions give members of Her Majesty’s forces the powers to stop and to question.
My point and that of my amendment is that there will be no joint patrols: a member of Her Majesty’s forces will be on duty on his or her own. They will have the power to stop a person in serious circumstances pertaining to a recent explosion, a recent incident endangering life, or to a person killed or injured in a recent explosion or incident. My entire argument is that in those serious circumstances, when a member of Her Majesty’s forces is on duty on their own and unable to call in aid a member of the PSNI, any offence committed ought to be punishable by a term of imprisonment equivalent to the £5,000 fine. That is my point.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again, if for no other reason than to clarify one point on which I slightly misled the Committee when responding to the hon. Lady. Clause 22 applies to constables as well as to members of the Army, so we seek to confer powers specifically on members of Her Majesty’s forces only in clause 21. When part 7 lapses, they will not have any power of arrest. The Army must have that limited power of arrest and of detention for up to four hours so that they can participate effectively in what may be a difficult public order situation or a situation surrounding an explosion.
Clause 21 is only for the Army, and clauses 20 and 22 apply power equally to the police and to the Army. We want to introduce the minimum powers necessary. The specific powers in clause 20 are concerned with the ability to stop and to question. If the Committee focuses on that narrow offence, I hope that it will agree that the penalty of a fine not exceeding level 5, which is the issue under discussion, is proportionate.

Lady Hermon: That was a lengthy intervention.
I am terribly sorry to disagree with the Minister, but as all hon. Members who consider the Bill will clearly see, the reference that he made to clause 21 and to the powers of arrest refers only to the powers of arrest given to Her Majesty’s forces. There is no equivalence given to a member of the PSNI. The word “constable” does not appear in clause 21. The powers in clause 22, relating to entry to a building, noting what and who is in the building and so on, are given to a police officer. There is no equivalence between the powers of entry in clause 22 and what we are discussing in clause 20, namely the power to stop and to question. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the legislative provisions that give PSNI constables the right to do what a member of Her Majesty’s forces can clearly do under clause 20, because the Bill does not.

Paul Goggins: I am always happy to try to help the hon. Lady and the Committee, but I suspect that I have gone as far as I can. On the narrow point of her amendment, which concerns whether a fine of up to level 5 is proportionate in relation to the offence of failing to stop when a constable or a member of Her Majesty’s forces insists on it, I fail to see how I can say more to try to persuade her. I acknowledge, however, that the clauses need to be read with great care, as the hon. Lady has said. For example, clause 20(1) refers to a
“member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable”
but clause 20(2) refers just to “Her Majesty’s forces”. We do not seek to give the powers to the police under subsection (2), because they already have them under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and we do not seek to duplicate powers that already exist. Instead, we want to give the minimum powers necessary to ensure that both the police and the Army can operate effectively in situations of extreme public disorder or in a situation involving explosives. I have gone as far as I can—I do not know whether I have persuaded the hon. Lady, but we shall soon find out.

Lady Hermon: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but the Minister has just pinpointed PACE as the source of the rights of police constables to stop and question in relation to an explosion, an incident endangering life, or where a person has been killed in a recent explosion or another incident. PACE has been identified for the first time this afternoon. Previously, the Minister said that clauses 21 and 22 provide equivalent police powers, but they most certainly do not. He has clarified the point, which is helpful. As he has said, given the seriousness of incidents, such as rioting, about which a person can be questioned by a soldier on his own with no member of the PSNI present, I am not happy that a person who refuses to co-operate when someone has been killed or seriously injured—

Laurence Robertson: I am following the hon. Lady’s argument and the Minister’s explanation closely. I am concerned about the extra punishment that she is seeking to introduce, which is based on amendments that I tabled. Had I succeeded in getting those amendments through, I would have been more comfortable with a stronger punishment, but as I did not, I am not as comfortable. Does she follow that argument, and would she like to comment?

Lady Hermon: I am not persuaded by the argument—I regret that I have not been here for the entire debate. It should be borne in mind that the provisions that we are considering today have just increased the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We are saying loudly and clearly to the people of Northern Ireland that we care about their human rights and most certainly about the right to life. We have just identified in clause 20 an incident that might deprive a person of their life or leave someone seriously injured. I should like to think that any well-intentioned, reasonable person on the bus—for example, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who travelled on the bus this morning—would expect full co-operation from every single person in Northern Ireland who was a witness or who has information. In those circumstances, I cannot for the life of me believe that a person could turn their back and walk away, and receive no more than a fine. It does not make moral sense, so I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sammy Wilson: Before we move off clause 20, I would like the Minister to clarify something. During his long debate with the hon. Member for North Down, I became increasingly intrigued by subsection (5). In what circumstances would he envisage the police or the Army stopping an aircraft that is airborne? Is it anticipated that Superman might be recruited by the PSNI to knock on the window of the cockpit and demand that the aircraft should be stopped? Will the Minister clarify that matter, because it has intrigued me for the past half hour?

Nicholas Winterton: Before the Minister replies, I call the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute.

Alan Reid: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I seek the Minister’s clarification on something that arose in the previous debate. The phrase “or a constable” is contained in the first line of subsection (1), but why do those words need to be there? Surely a constable would have those powers anyway under PACE.

Nicholas Winterton: I call the Minister to reply. I think that he has had time to ascertain precisely how he is going to answer the hon. Member for East Antrim.

Paul Goggins: I shall come to the hon. Member for East Antrim in a moment.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute must read the wording in subsection (1) carefully. A constable would not otherwise have the power to question someone to ascertain his identity and movements
“for so long as is necessary”.
We seek to give that power to the police, because it would be ridiculous for the Army to have more powers than the police to deal with a public order matter or  other pressing situation. Subsection (1) must be read very carefully. It states that a constable may
“stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him to ascertain his identity and movements.”
The police in Northern Ireland would not otherwise have that power in the circumstances that we have been discussing.

Laurence Robertson: Given that we are returning to a situation of normalisation, to use the Minister’s words, why is it necessary to give Her Majesty’s forces or the police even more powers?

Paul Goggins: Let us consider a situation elsewhere in the UK. If the police have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, they can stop someone and question them under PACE. We are discussing situations in which the police need to detain someone to ascertain their identity and movements. We believe that we need such powers in Northern Ireland and that similar powers should be given to the Army to deal with incidents that endanger life—sadly, the threats of explosives and of serious social disorder still exist in Northern Ireland. It is specifically because those risks still exist in Northern Ireland that we seek to give those limited but important powers to the police.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister has not quite answered my question. The question is why now? Why were those powers not introduced in 1972, at the height of the troubles, or more recently? The DUP is almost sitting down with Sinn Fein, and the IMC report says that the IRA is not involved in paramilitary activity, so why is it necessary to extend Army and police powers?

Paul Goggins: I have failed to explain the matter sufficiently clearly. Those powers already exist in Northern Ireland under part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000. Because of the commitment to repeal part VII from the end of July this year, Ministers had to decide whether leaving out all those powers was reasonable, given the threat that still exists from terrorism and serious public disorder linked to paramilitary activity. Our judgment was that we could not do so and that we needed to put in place minimum powers to enable the police and the Army to continue to deal with such serious situations. We are including powers that already exist, but we are dropping the part VII powers, which will not exist after July. We feel that the powers that we are keeping are necessary in the present circumstances.
I cannot remember, Sir Nicholas, whether I am intervening or making a speech.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is making a speech.

Paul Goggins: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I hope that I have clarified the position.
We now come to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Antrim. If I were to give a serious explanation, I would not persuade anyone. I presume that the provision means that if a police officer or someone in the Army were waving to someone flying overhead, it would not constitute an offence, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I see a pilot in our midst.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is going to ask a cheeky question.

Lembit Öpik: It had to happen, Sir Nicholas, but I salute your self-control up to this point.
I want to thank whoever drafted this piece of legislation on behalf of pilots all over Northern Ireland. It is a matter of great relief to me that we will not be stopped while we are flying. I suggest to the Minister that it might be possible to stop an aircraft that is airborne by using a large fan. Is it the Minister’s understanding that an aircraft about to become airborne could legitimately be stopped by a memberof the security forces? It would be travelling at about 150 mph.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman will be copied into my letter to the hon. Member for East Antrim. That is probably the most constructive way to respond to that most insightful question.

Nicholas Winterton: Before I put the question, I have to say that I thought that the Minister might reply by, bearing in mind the name of the hon. Member for East Antrim, saying that he would stop it with a SAM.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Arrest

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson: Briefly, and on the same lines as I questioned the Minister on why it is necessary to extend the powers of the police under clause 20—I was desperately searching through the Terrorism Act 2000, but we reached clause 21 before I could find the relevant provision—will he explain why it is necessary at this stage to introduce powers that I think he said do not exist for Her Majesty’s forces, given that we are supposed to be moving towards normalisation?
My second question concerns subsection (1), which begins:
“If a member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty reasonably suspects”.
Are we going to continue to use “suspects”, or will it be “believes” in future? I am struggling to understand what subsection (2) means. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the situation.

Paul Goggins: It is important to recognise a couple of things. First, members of Her Majesty’s forces do not have a power of arrest, which we seek to provide them with under limited circumstances. Secondly, I ask the Committee to consider a situation in which a member of Her Majesty’s forces is dealing with explosives that have been found. The Army has the expertise to deal with a threat from explosives by defusing them and so on. The Army could be called urgently to a road closure or some other scenario. They might be the only people in the area; they might get there before the police; or they might be there because they are the only people who are safe to be there. If  they came across somebody whom they suspected of being involved in the commission of the offence of laying explosives, they would need to have the power to arrest that individual. After the Terrorism Act 2000 is repealed, they will not have that power—

Laurence Robertson: But they do now.

Paul Goggins: They do at the moment, but they have no powers other than those conferred by part VII. We need to ensure that they have the powers, and this clause provides them.

Lady Hermon: That has given me an opportunity to comment on two curious aspects of the clause. First, I should like some clarification and assurances from the Minister about the way in which it is drafted. It states:
“If a member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty reasonably suspects that a person is committing, has committed or is about to commit any offence he may...arrest the person without warrant, and...detain him for a period not exceeding four hours.”
What is the position of an off-duty soldier? The Minister has given us assurances that the PSNI has powers of arrest and detention under other legislation, even when part VII of the 2000 Act is dropped. Will an off-duty member of the PSNI have to stand by and not intervene? And will they have to call in aid a member of the PSNI who is on duty? What is the position of an off-duty soldier? It is rather vexing that community support officers in Northern Ireland will have more powers than members of Her Majesty’s forces when a person about to commit an offence.
The second point is related to that in the sense that subsection (2) states that a person—meaning a member of Her Majesty’s forces—
“making an arrest under this section complies with any rule of law requiring him to state the ground of arrest if he states that he is making the arrest as a member of Her Majesty’s forces.”
For ease of interpretation, subsection (5) defines“a rule of law”:
“The reference to a rule of law in subsection (2) does not include a rule of law which has effect only by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
That is extraordinary. Given the overall content ofthe Bill and, as we have highlighted, the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, I am amazed and surprised to find an exclusion whereby a soldier does not seem to have to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. Those are the two points on which I await clarification by the Minister.

Paul Goggins: On the hon. Lady’s first question, the powers are not conferred on an off-duty solder by this piece of legislation. An off-duty soldier would, of course, have the power of citizen’s arrest, in as much as any other member of the public would have that power if something were happening and they were the closest person to the situation, but they would not have the powers conferred under the Bill. Soldiers would have those powers only when they were on duty. I hope that that clarifies the position. In reality, there would, of course, be an ongoing Army operation to deal with a major security threat or serious incident, which would obviously include only soldiers who were on duty.
Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury have mentioned subsection (2). When the police make an arrest, they have to give reasons for doing so. They have to say that there is a suspicion that the person being arrested has been involved in the commission of an offence. The police have to give that information to the person whom they are arresting, which they are trained to do with great care.
The Army is not trained to do that. We therefore propose that it is sufficient for members of Her Majesty’s forces who make arrests simply to state that they are doing so as members of Her Majesty’s forces, which is a simple, straightforward line that they will all be in a position to use. That provision will empower them to detain the person for up to four hours. Of course, if the police arrest that person, that person must be given reasons. If that person is then rearrested and detained for other reasons, they must be given those reasons, too. However, because members of Her Majesty’s forces are not trained for that, because there is no need to train them for that, all they have to do is say that the arrest is being made by a member of Her Majesty’s forces, which is sufficient for the powers conferred under the clause.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify for the benefit of the Committee which rules of law under the Human Rights Act 1998 do not bind on-duty members of Her Majesty’s forces?

Paul Goggins: There is some confusion here. The hon. Lady is rarely confused, so I simply say that there must compliance with the 1998 Act and that there is no exemption from that. The 1998 Act still applies, and it is not suspended in the situations that we are discussing.

Lady Hermon: The Minister has just confirmed that, of course, all soldiers abide by their human rights obligations. Will he therefore explain the need to include subsection (5), which, unless my eyesight is really poor, clearly states:
“The reference to a rule of law in subsection (2) does not include a rule of law which has effect only by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998”?
Which rules of law arising only by virtue of the 1998 Act do not bind Her Majesty’s forces?

Paul Goggins: The best scenario is for me to write to the hon. Lady and give her a fuller answer than I can give her now. I offer her the wider assurance that the Bill is compliant with the European convention on human rights and has been carefully drafted as such. However, I am more than happy to write to her in relation to her point about subsection (5), if that is sufficient.

Laurence Robertson: On a slightly different point about subsection (2), the Minister has said that members of the armed forces do not need to give a reason when making an arrest. Is he comfortable with that? I accept his explanation that they are not trained to handle such situations, but there must be a reason why the police have to give a reason for an arrest. The person being arrested will presumably not have listened to this debate and will not know why they have not been given the reasons for being arrested. Is the Minister comfortable with that?

Paul Goggins: I am comfortable with that, given the kind of scenario that I remind the Committee we are dealing with, which might involve extreme risk to life. Obviously it is necessary for a member of Her Majesty’s forces to offer some explanation, but we have confined that to saying simply that they are making the arrest as a member of Her Majesty’s forces. That is sufficient, in the face of what might be great pressure, for an arrest and detention for up to four hours. It is a sensible and proportionate measure and, to answer the hon. Gentleman, I am comfortable with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank the hon. Member for Foyle, who has just arrived, for courteously arranging for his office to send a further message to the Chairman that his plane had been delayed at Belfast City airport by adverse weather conditions. We welcome him, a little belatedly, to this afternoon’s sitting.

Clause 22

Entry

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in clause 22, page 17, line 5, leave out from ‘in’ to end of line 6 and insert
‘order to prevent paramilitary activity or to obtain evidence relating to suspected paramilitary activity.’.
Sir Nicholas, you are probably aware that one or two other Committee members have also been delayed by the weather. For example, the Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes, has been delayed.
I do not want to labour my point, as we have hada long discussion about similar amendments. The amendment deals with the provisions on entry inclause 22, which states:
“A member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable may enter any premises if he considers it necessary”.
My amendment would insert the words
“in order to prevent paramilitary activity or to obtain evidence relating to suspected paramilitary activity”.
As the hon. Member for North Down has pointed out, the clause starts by referring to a member of Her Majesty’s forces or a constable, but from subsection (2) onwards, it refers only to a constable. If the rest of the clause referred to members of Her Majesty’s forces as well, I would not have tabled the amendment. I say that because the constable has to obtain authorisation, where it is reasonably practicable to do so, from
“an officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland of at least the rank of superintendent”.
A member of Her Majesty’s forces does not, as far as I can read, have to obtain any authorisation, so I thought it wise to suggest that we might want to strengthen the reasons for making such an entry.

Sammy Wilson: I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, but would it not be possible for those involved in organising, for example, a street riot to dodge into a house to escape arrest, to meet to arrange further disorder or simply to get away to come out again? They might not be there as members of a paramilitary group, or even be engaged in paramilitary activity, but they will be disturbing the peace and putting people’s lives in danger. In such circumstances, would the amendment not eliminate rather than extend the ability to enter premises?

Laurence Robertson: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but clause 24(1) states:
“A member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty who reasonably believes that a person is unlawfully detained in such circumstances that his life is in danger may enter”.
Subsection (2) states that a member of Her Majesty’s forces
“may enter a dwelling...only if he is authorised for the purpose by a commissioned officer of Her Majesty’s forces.”
That contradicts clause 22 slightly.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am a little surprised that there is a difference between a constable, who must obtain authorisation where it is reasonably practicable, and a member of Her Majesty’s forces, who need not. I will not press the amendment, which is just a probing amendment to draw out the Minister’s explanation.

Lembit Öpik: I, too, think that the words
“or the maintenance of order”
in clause 22(1) are extremely broad. That could be used as a justification for almost any entry. Taken in association with subsection (2), which states that a
“constable may not rely on subsection (1) to enter a building unless...it is not reasonably practicable to obtain authorisation”,
it could give constables wide latitude to enter buildings. It also seems that clause 24 is unnecessary. If the Minister insists on the broad definition under clause 22, I cannot see why a subset of that definition enjoys its own clause in clause 24.

Paul Goggins: The amendment would—the hon. Member for East Antrim hit the nail on the head—make dealing with the serious situations with which the powers are intended to deal unworkable. If the police in effect had to prove a paramilitary link before they were able to take any action, that might lead to unnecessary delay, which could have a devastating effect.
I shall present a scenario as an example. Two routes lead to a location where an explosive has been found or where some serious disorder is about to break out. One is through a public right of way and the other is across some private land. If we were to accept the amendment, the Army would have no choice but to go through the public right of way, where they might suspect that a booby trap was waiting, as unless they could prove a paramilitary link they would not be able to go across the private land. We do not want to constrain Army personnel who are dealing with extremely difficult situations so that they would have to go to such lengths to deal with what might be a life-threatening situation. It would certainly have an impact on the operation if they were not allowed to enter premises without proof of a paramilitary link. It might even place not only members of the public but Army personnel in danger. I ask the hon. Member for Tewkesbury to consider that seriously.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister is making a reasonably convincing point on a narrow issue. Does he agree that the wording could have been tighter? It is lax and so we have two extremes, particularly in the example that he has just given the Committee.

Paul Goggins: I am not at this stage convinced that the wording is too lax, but I made a commitment at the outset that throughout our deliberations we would look for ways in which the wording could be tightened and clarified. That is the purpose of the Committee. I will happily look again at the wording to ensure that it does the job that we want it to. The key idea is to give the Army the power to deal quickly with a fast-changing and dangerous scenario.
Hon. Members have mentioned the safeguards. As set out in the clause, it is clear that the police should seek written authorisation from a superintendent or oral authorisation from an inspector. That is the system that the police are used to, and if time allows that is what they should and would do. The Army is not used to operating in that way and it is important that in pressing and difficult circumstances we keep the system as simple as possible, so the authorisation will not be sought in the same way. However, the Army and the police are required under the legislation to make a record of what has happened. That applies equally to the Army as to the police.
In relation to the police, we return to the issue of oversight. The police ombudsman will be able to investigate any allegations if there are concerns.

Lady Hermon: For the benefit of the Committee,will the Minister identify which subsection obliges a member of Her Majesty’s forces to have authorisation?

Paul Goggins: I am sorry if I have inadvertently misled the Committee. I am saying that members of the police must have authorisation in writing from a superintendent if there is time, or verbally from an inspector if there is not. A record must always be made. We are not seeking the requirement of the same system of authorisation in relation to the Army, because it does not operate using similar systems. To make that requirement might induce confusion and uncertainty, which we do not want to do. We will, however, require a record to be made that can be examined with hindsight.

Laurence Robertson: I was about to make the same point as the hon. Member for North Down. My reading of the clause suggests that members of Her Majesty’s forces are not required to make a record. I understand that—

Paul Goggins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Laurence Robertson: Is the Minister intervening on my intervention?

Nicholas Winterton: Order. A Member cannot intervene on an intervention.

Laurence Robertson: Secondly, I understand that the Army does not normally work on an authorisation basis, but when a member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty reasonably believes that a person is unlawfully detained in such circumstances that his life is in danger—there cannot be a more serious situation—he will have to obtain authorisation under clause 24. Unless I am reading it wrong, I cannot understand that difference between clauses 22 and 24.

Paul Goggins: We are seeking to keep the matter as simple as possible. The armed forces do not need to make a record because that is not reasonably practicable in the situations that I have described. I offer clarification of my earlier remarks: it will not be necessary for the Army to make a written record. We want to keep the situation clear and simple for the Army. We want the Army to have the powers in question and not to have them confused or reduced by a requirement to prove a connection with paramilitary activity before personnel can act. The powers will facilitate rapid responses to what might be difficult circumstances, and they are proportionate and represent the minimum necessary.

Mark Durkan: I apologise again to the Committee for my absence earlier, which I am sure was welcome to some Members, considering the number of amendments that we have tabled. I appreciate your tolerance, Sir Nicholas, and that of the Committee. My embarrassment is exceeded only by my gratitude for some hon. Members seeking to assist me.
Will the Minister address the point that, like other clauses, clause 22 gives powers not only to the Army, but to the police? A moment ago, he mentioned that the police are subject to the police ombudsman. The Army will not be subject to that process of scrutiny or to a complaints process. Do not these clauses not only reverse the commitment made by the Governments in the joint declaration of 2003 and what was enacted last year, but breach Patten? The Patten report stated:
“Eventually—and we hope this will come about sooner rather than later—army support for the civil power in Northern Ireland should in principle be no more than it is in any other part of the United Kingdom”.
Patten also recommended that
“the law in Northern Ireland should be the same as that in the rest of the United Kingdom.”
These provisions clearly breach that. Patten also observed—

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I am always fascinated to listen to the hon. Gentleman, but this is an intervention, not a speech. Will he put the particular point that he wishes to make to the Minister in this articulate intervention?

Mark Durkan: I am simply asking the Minister to address the fact that these provisions breach the Patten vision of policing. That has serious implications.

Paul Goggins: Patten recognised that there may still be a role for the Army to play in a situation of extreme public disorder. We recognise it too. Although the Army stationed in Northern Ireland beyond July of this year will be a garrison force, we want to make provision to ensure that, should the situation arise, the Army can act decisively to protect public order and deal with explosives and other difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, whom I am delighted to see here this afternoon, missed our discussion on aeroplanes and stop and question, but he is here anyway and was not stopped and questioned along the way. On the powers of the police ombudsman, the ombudsman is of course able to investigate in relation to the police.
My hon. Friend will have noticed that the independent reviewer, whose prime purpose is to review the powers that we are giving the Army and the police under this part of the Bill, will also have a role to play in dealing with any complaint that relates to military personnel. Such complaints are very few and far between. From memory, I think that in the last year there were perhaps just half a dozen—a small number—so we do not anticipate that there will be many. There will be fewer still when there are no Army personnel to be seen on a regular basis on the streets of Northern Ireland, but we have a provision that will allow complaints to be made and dealt with.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister clarify the Government’s thinking as between clause 22, when a soldier does not need to have authority, and clause 24, when he does? I just cannot see the consistency or the logic as to why there should be two different standards.

Paul Goggins: The only explanation I can offer at this stage is that clause 24 includes the power of search while clause 22 provides only for the power of entry. Those are different powers and we believe, on balance, that one requires authorisation while the other does not. The hon. Gentleman may or may not accept that explanation, but it is the explanation that I offer.

Laurence Robertson: I had almost forgotten that it was my amendment we were discussing, as the discussion has gone on for so long. I said that it was a probing amendment, and we can safely say that we have probed, but I am not satisfied by the Minister’s response as to why the personnel we are discussing do not need permission to enter premises. They are not going to just enter and stand there. Presumably they are going to do something when they get in. Under clause 24, however, they need permission to enter, even though that clause seems to relate to a more urgent circumstance—someone’s life being in danger.
I cannot understand the reason for the difference between clauses 22 and 24, and I would be happy if the Minister agreed to discuss that difference with his officials to see whether the provisions could be tightened up a little. That said, we have had a good discussion.

Paul Goggins: In the general spirit of the work being done by the Committee, I am very happy to go away and satisfy myself that the authorisation powers in clauses 22 and 24 are proportionate and do sit together.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for that intervention and look forward to discussing the issue with him further perhaps, but we have probed and he has been generous and accommodating, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lady Hermon: When the Minister goes away to reflect and to try to satisfy himself that clause 22 is consistent with the wording of clause 24, will he take with him a copy of Hansard for the record of our debate on clause 20? During that debate—as I recall, but Hansard will show—the Minister used words akin to, “It would be ridiculous if the Army had more powers than the police.” I highlighted the problem in both clause 20 and clause 22. The difficulty and the confusion has arisen because of the wording of subsection (1) of the clauses:
“A member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable”.
The Bill then concentrates on giving powers either to the constable under clause 22 or to a soldier under clause 20. Surely, to be consistent, if it is indeed ridiculous for the Army to have more powers than the police, the soldier on duty must have an obligation to take details—at least to have a record of the building. The requirements on a police officer under clause 22 mean that he has a duty and must ensure that
“as soon as is reasonably practicable a record is made of...the address of the building (if known)...the location of the building...the date of entry...the time of entry...the purpose of entry...the police number of each constable entering, and...the police number and rank of the authorising officer ”.
That is very detailed. The Minister said that we do not want to make it too difficult or cumbersome for the Army; but with the greatest respect, it has been made very easy for the Army. The drafting of clauses 20, 22 and 24 is appalling and inconsistent, although I apologise to the draftsmen and women who work so hard.

Sammy Wilson: I understand the point that the hon. Lady is making about the apparent difference between the powers of the police and the Army, but does she not accept that the list in clause 22(6) shows what most police officers would make as entries their notebooks in the event of entering premises?

Lady Hermon: Indeed; the hon. Gentleman makes a good intervention—and he was almost on time this afternoon. Yes, that is the normal procedure for a constable in the normal course of his duties.
Those obligations will be imposed by the Bill, but the curious thing is that, although clause 22 introduces the words
“a member of her Majesty’s forces”,
 they do not apply in any other provision in that clause to soldiers on duty. The Minister is trying to defend the clause, but if he reads Hansard, he will see that he contradicts what he said in relation to clause 20. That is the only point that I would make—that the Minister should reflect on clause 22 to be consistent.

Mark Durkan: Clause 22 provides wide powers to enter premises. It is considered necessary for the police to do so for the maintenance of public order. The police do not need a warrant and there is no requirement even for reasonable suspicion. That is worrying when it applies to the police.
The Government have indicated that the provision gives the police some flexibility, and they will argue that police actions will be subject to accountability mechanisms through the Policing Board and, importantly, through the police ombudsman. The Government will indicate that there are new safeguards for police officers getting authorisation. However, those powers are also being given to the British Army, and the Army will not have to seek authorisation.
Those powers are meant to be used in support of the civil power. We are told that the Army will be acting only in support of the civil power, but none of the civil power standards will apply. As well as not seeking authorisation, the Army will not have to keep records, as the police have to do. Those aggrieved by such Army actions will find no means open to complain. They may go to the police, who might want to be responsive and understanding, but the police will not be able to help. That will create a totally unsatisfactory situation, which breaches the Patten vision.
In reply to my earlier intervention, the Minister said that those powers will be subject to annual review. Patten touched on the question of annual review if there was unfortunately a need to continue any sort of special provisions in Northern Ireland. What Patten said in that respect was that such provisions
“should be subject to annual independent review and to Parliament’s approval of any or all of them remaining in force”—
that is, annual renewal by Parliament, just as emergency provisions and special laws always are. We should remember that, under the Bill, there will be no more annual renewal. The powers will be there permanently.
How can the Government justify those wide powers for the Army? I think they go too far, even in relation to the police, but at least we have some comfort in accountability of the police service. If we get to devolution of justice and policing, those powers are likely to be reserved for legislation by this Parliament, not by the devolved Assembly. The police service, supposedly under the devolved remit, will be backed up by the Army—obviously, not under the devolved remit—and both the police service and the Army will use controversial special powers, which those in the devolved institutions will have no right or role in reviewing or amending. That is contrary to what people envisaged under the Good Friday agreement and the Patten report.
That is why I ask the Minister to address the fact that, in relation to matters in earlier clauses that refer to the courts and now these matters of continuing the emergency powers permanently, the Government must think very carefully about the exact situation that they are creating. They are creating a situation of quicksand and confusion, and many people leading the new beginning in the police service will be unhappy about that, whatever their justification for retaining some powers. I understand that some officers believe that some powers should be retained, not least in relation to the possible difficulties that may arise—we hope that they will not—with parades. The Government are going too far with permanent sweeping provisions and such wide-ranging clauses.

Sammy Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman not overstating his case? First, clause 22(1) clearly specifies a fairly high threshold in so far as a member of Her Majesty’s forces or a constable must consider the action necessary. That is a fairly strong statement. It does not say “suspects” or “believes”; it says “considers it necessary”. There is a high threshold to be met.
Secondly, although the hon. Gentleman made an issue of the fact that the Army will not be under the same constraints as the police, I cannot think of any instance when the Army would not be accompanied by the police, because they are there to help the police and to back them up. The only situation in which they will be used is when the Chief Constable asks them to help the police. There will be a police officer present who must have the authorisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman’s points are flatly contradicted by the Bill. If a police officer is always present and if he needs authorisation, why are Army officers immunised from that need for authorisation? If they are always accompanied by police officers, why does the question of a soldier acting without authorisation arise? Surely, the policeman who can obtain authorisation can act. Similarly, if the Army will always be accompanied by the police, why is the power of arrest, which we discussed on other clauses, necessary? The hon. Gentleman’s argument that the police will always be present is an argument against the Army having such powers.

Sammy Wilson: In practical terms, when the police and the Army are involved in joint operations, the arrest may often involve a police officer and an Army officer or a member of the Army, so they need to be covered, so that they can jointly take part in such an arrest or operation.

Mark Durkan: Why then has the hon. Gentleman not tabled an amendment to give the Army the right to exercise those powers only in circumstances when it is clearly acting in support of the civil power withpolice officers present, having obtained the proper authorisation and so on?
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that clause 22(1) provides a very high threshold and a very high test—it does not. It simply says:
“A member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable may enter any premises if he considers it necessary in the course of operations”.
 It does not say that he must have reasonable grounds; he has only to consider it necessary. Many people may consider lots of things necessary in such circumstances, but there is no serious test. In particular, when a member of the forces is under no requirement to keep a record, we cannot take the assurance that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
I have made the point in relation other clauses that the Government are reversing legislative changes that Parliament made in the Terrorism Act 2006. I have still heard no good explanation from the Minister about why the clear statements and commitments from the Secretary of State that powers would be renewed only until 31 July and would then be renewable for one year only until July 2008 should be overtaken. What has changed in the prevailing circumstances since the Secretary of State made those clear unambiguous statements? After all, he was telling us in glowing terms that things are getting better every day and that all sorts of bad things are being put behind us. Why, then, are we having to make emergency legislation permanent? Why, then, are we violating the Patten vision of policing?

Paul Goggins: First, I assure the hon. Member for North Down that I will be happy to consider the consistency between the clauses and my remarks on clause 20. From memory, I think that I was talking about the Army and the police in the same situation, saying that it would be ridiculous for the Army to have more powers than the police if they were both engaged in the same situation. However, I will happily check and reflect on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle asked about the role of the reviewer. I draw his attention in advance of our discussions on it to clause 39(1)(b), under which the reviewer will look at the procedures adopted by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland for
“receiving, investigating and responding to complaints.”
The reviewer must then make a report to the Secretary of State, who will report to Parliament. There will be considerable scrutiny of any complaint about military activity. My hon. Friend’s movements suggest that he is not satisfied with that assurance. I am happy to give way.

Mark Durkan: I remind the Minister that the Patten test was Parliament’s approval of
“any or all of them remaining in force”.

Paul Goggins: I will come to Patten and the other matters raised by my hon. Friend in a moment.
My hon. Friend asked about the renewal of powers. Again, that strays into territory that we are likely to deal with later in our deliberations. We take the view that the powers are limited when compared to the part VII powers and that they will be necessary for some time to come. It seems quite unnecessary to have to renew them every year, as we anticipate that they will continue to be necessary. However, using reviewer’s reports to the Secretary of State and our other monitoring, we will see over time which of these powers in the Bill are no longer necessary—and the Secretary of State has the power to repeal them. We prefer to take that approach, rather than renewing the powers every year.

Mark Durkan: The Minister said that it is necessary for the powers to remain in place. That may be the Government’s clear view now, but why has it changed from the clear view expressed by the Secretary of State and Ministers when the House was debating the Terrorism Act 2006, which would extend the powers to July this year—and only in extremis extend them for a further year and no more? That was the Government’s clear statement then. Are things worse now than they were last summer?

Paul Goggins: It would be irresponsible of any Government not to put in place the necessary powers for the police or the Army to deal with situations specific to the circumstances in Northern Ireland that may endanger life. I make no apology for making such proposals.
Let us inject some realism into this debate. The Army no longer routinely patrols the streets of Northern Ireland; as I have said, from the end of July this year, we will have a garrison fort in Northern Ireland. That brings me to the issue of proportionality in respect of the powers that we are giving the Army. The Army would be operational in Northern Ireland in support of the police only in extreme circumstances, such as a Whiterock scenario or serious attacks involving explosives. Do my hon. Friend and others expect the Government to rush back to get the powers when the Army has to be deployed in Northern Ireland in an emergency? No, it is much better to foresee any such eventuality now by putting the powers in place. Every one of us hopes that they will never need to be used, but if such extreme situations arise, the Army will need them to protect life and protect people.

Mark Durkan: The Minister says that he regards legislating in that way as a mark of the Government’s responsibility. Is he saying that he and the Secretary of State were irresponsible in asking Parliament to pass the Terrorism Act 2006, which removed those powers, only months ago?

Paul Goggins: I reject that entirely. It would be irresponsible if now, in taking the bold step of repealing part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000, we did not make sure that the police and the Army had sufficient powers to deal with extreme situations. Pictures of the serious disorder at Whiterock have been mentioned; I have seen them too, and other members of the Committee may have seen the reality. No responsible Minister would not empower the police and the Army to deal with such situations as they occur.
The hon. Member for East Antrim pointed out that clause 22(1) has a high threshold. Perhaps its most important words are
“Her Majesty’s forces on duty”.
As Northern Ireland moves towards normalisation, the fact that Her Majesty’s forces are rarely—perhaps never—on duty should encourage us all. However, if they need to be on duty in support of the police, they need the powers to act. We are seeking to give them the minimum powers required to deal with the situations that I have described.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Nicholas Winterton: We shall shortly come to clauses that relate to powers. They are not all interlinked, and I am well aware of the interest of the hon. Member for Foyle in all of them. He has tabled amendments that, for good reason, have not been selected. I intend to allow clause stand part debates on all the clauses, but ask Committee members to use their discretion and good sense and not to repeat arguments in each debate. If they wish to have a clause stand part debate, they should direct any remarks to the details of the specific clause.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 24

Search for unlawfullly detained persons

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: Given that we have passed clause 22, which gives a pretty wide definition of powers of entry, I do not see why clause 24 is necessary.

Lady Hermon: I do not think that I have ever heard the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire be so brief, concise and controversial all at once.
Sir Nicholas, it is generous of you to allow time for Committee members to make points on each of the clauses in stand part debates. My point is small and relates to the drafting of clause 24(1), which states:
“A member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty who reasonably believes that a person is unlawfully detained in such circumstances that his life is in danger may enter and search any premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether the person is detained there.”
I stress that the words “a person” are used twice in clause 24. It is unfortunate that the opening words of subsection (2) are, “A person”. That is confusing because it implies, wrongly, that that person is somebody other than a member of Her Majesty’s forces. For the purposes of complete clarity and the understanding of the clause, it would be helpful if the opening words of subsection (2) were also “A member of Her Majesty’s forces”, rather than “A person”. It is a minor point, but it would assist understanding of the clause.

Mark Durkan: In response to earlier debates, the Minister explained that the Army is intended to be down to garrison strength and its personnel will very rarely be on duty, which means that they will perform policing duties very rarely. On that basis, I do not know why the Bill goes to such lengths to confer policing powers. The police already get such powers under draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes, and the matter is already governed by common law. Like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I have to ask what the justification is for going any further.

Paul Goggins: I have said that what we seek to putin place through the clauses that we are debatingthis afternoon has been arrived at after careful consideration of the types of scenario that may pertain and require the police to have certain powers. The clause describes one of the scenarios with which we believe the Army should be empowered to deal. I emphasise, however, that use of the power must be authorised by a commissioned officer. We recognise that it is a serious matter and that a commissioned officer should have to give approval.
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle is right to say that the police already have sufficient powers under statute and common law to take action to save life and limb. The power in the Bill applies only to the armed forces. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, it is unlikely to be used because it is increasingly unlikely that the Army will be deployed in operational situations in Northern Ireland. However, should the circumstances arise, the Army needs to be able to deal with them. If someone has been kidnapped or imprisoned against their will, it is important that the Army, as well as the police, should be able to deal with it.
In answer to the short speech and question of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, we need the powers because if someone has been kidnapped and if the Army are first to come across it, they will need to deal with it urgently. The clause gives them the power to do so.

Lembit Öpik: My intervention may be slightly longer than my speech, Sir Nicholas, but I hope that it will be within the usual constraints.
The Minister has not addressed my concern, which is that we do not need clause 24 because it is perfectly obvious that clause 22(1) covers the same circumstances. More worrying is the fact that clause 24 does not seem to impose the restrictions of authorisation outlined in detail in clause 22. I do not see why the Minister thinks clause 24 is necessary. It gives much more power to members of Her Majesty’s forces than clause 22 but without the authorisation limitations outlined in clause 22.

Paul Goggins: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s further probing question is that clause 22 deals only with powers of entry. Clause 24 deals with powers of search and entry. We took considerable care when drafting those powers to ensure that they are the minimum required in the circumstances that pertain. It is necessary to have such powers in place. A situation may arise in which they could save peoples’ lives.

Lembit Öpik: What the Minister says is important; we need clarification on the record. By implication, he is saying that clause 22 does not give powers of search and entry but merely of entry. That is the only logical way to interpret what he said. That is worrying, because it means that a constable can go into premises but do nothing more. Will the Minister explain exactly what clause 22 does permit, as it could one day be of significance in court?

Paul Goggins: We can go back to clause 22—

Nicholas Winterton: By reference only.

Paul Goggins: Entry to premises may be necessary in the course of operations for the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order. That clause deals with the powers of entry alone. I want to make clearto the hon. Gentleman the scenario that we want to deal with through clause 24. If someone has been kidnapped, imprisoned or held against their will, their life may be at risk. In such circumstances, we believe that the Army needs those additional powers.

Sammy Wilson: The more the Minister answers, the more confused I become. He says that clause 22 refers only to the power of entry. The sort of scenario that I painted when the hon. Member for Tewkesbury was speaking was the example of a house being used by people who were involved in rioting or whatever, and that the police or the Army had to enter in the interest of maintaining the peace. Is the Minister saying that the Army could not look into cupboards or under the stairs or under beds to see if people were hiding there? Are they allowed only to go through the door?

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify my remarks. Clause 22 gives the power of entry. Powers given elsewhere in the Bill enable Army personnel to take further appropriate action. For example, schedule 3, which we have just dealt with, gives the power to seize explosives. Having been given the power to enter, the Army can take further action under the powers given in schedule 3. Hon. Members will see that, throughout the Bill, the Army is given other powers that maybe required in the scenario that pertains. Initially, however, we need to give the Army the power to enter, which is given in clause 22. Clause 24 gives additional powers in relation to detained persons.
Finally, I can tell the hon. Member for North Down that I will happily go away and look at “a person”, “the person” and “a member of Her Majesty’s forces” and ensure that all the appropriate phrases are in order.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Premises: vehicles, &c.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Durkan: Clause 25 takes the powers inclause 23, which we have already debated and agreed, and applies them to vehicles. The powers to stop and search a person for explosives or to stop and search someone in a car have been among the most controversial powers in Northern Ireland. They were used systematically and were seen by many as a tool for harassment because there was no requirement for reasonable suspicion. Anyone in a public place or anyone making a journey by car, whether every day for business, or for a Sunday run over the border from Derry, could be searched at any time—and that happened. Whatever justification there may have been for that in the past, when a significant number of explosions were happening in Northern Ireland, we are now at a point when the power is not necessary. Unfortunately, there are still some explosions, but the number is far less than it was.
We should not follow the logic of everything that the Government tell us about the threat of terrorism in Britain. The threat posed by al-Qaeda in Britain is far greater that that posed by domestic terrorism in Northern Ireland, yet Britain has no equivalent to the powers in clauses 23 and 25 or schedule 3. I therefore oppose the clause standing part. If people cannot justify those powers in Great Britain, given the threat of terrorism and explosions there, how can they be justified in Northern Ireland?

Paul Goggins: I have already made it clear that it is necessary to counter the threat of international terrorism. We discussed the matter extensively in the early stage of our deliberations. In clause 25, we seek to put in place powers that will enable the police and the Army to deal with the terrorist threat that is specific to Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister not find the arguments of the hon. Member for Foyle most unusual given the fact that a number of members of his party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, who were also members of district policing partnerships and the Police Board have had their homes attacked by people who carried explosives to those homes and then threw the bombs at them?

Paul Goggins: I give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and members of his party; they have indeed taken a risk in recent years by showing their support for the police and the rule of law and being prepared to engage with the issues. Some of them have paid a heavy price. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to acknowledge and applaud that. They have given a lead, and it has not always been easy. If my hon. Friend wishes to respond, I am sure that he will find an opportunity to do so.
Clause 25 clarifies certain powers, particularly the power to stop and search a vehicle. That is important in respect of Northern Ireland and the type of threats that we are discussing. Obviously, people can move vehicles round with explosives in them so we must provide such powers. There is also a power under the clause that requires someone to remain with a vehicle or to go with it when it is searched for munitions and transmitters. That is necessary as individuals could attempt to walk away from a vehicle that is being searched. We have thought through the matter carefully and believe that such powers are necessary in respect of both premises and vehicles. I encourage the Committee to support the clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Examination of documents

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lady Hermon: I oppose clause 26 standing part of the Bill not because I object in principle to the Government’s intention, but because we need further clarification and assurances from the Minister. As members of the Committee will have noted, the clause deals with the examination of documents, but only an examination that is performed consequent on a search by a member of Her Majesty’s forces as outlined in previous clauses.
Clause 26 is carefully drafted. We are delighted that the hon. Member for Foyle is back with us this afternoon. We missed his contributions earlier, but he has certainly livened up proceedings and made up for his absence from Committee this morning. I might not agree with half of what he says, but it is always a delight to listen to him.

Sammy Wilson: Only half?

Lady Hermon: Well, more than half. I was being polite.
My difficulty with the clause is that it is precise in providing that a member of Her Majesty’s forces who performs such a search
“may examine any document or record found in order to ascertain whether it contains information of the kind mentioned in section 58(1)(a)...of the Terrorism Act 2000...(information likely to be useful for terrorism)”
and that
“if necessary or expedient for the purpose”
of the provision that person
“may remove the document or record to another place and retain it there until the examination is completed.”
The clause deals with specific types of documents that relate to terrorism. It is unusual in such circumstances that, under clause 26(3),
“A document or record may not be retained by virtue of subjection (1)(b) for more than 48 hours.”
When we discuss clause 27 stand part, it will become apparent that no photocopy or photograph can be taken of a document that might relate to terrorism.
Given what the Minister just said in response tothe objections of the hon. Member for Foyle and his assurance that the powers are still necessary in Northern Ireland to combat terrorism in all its forms—I make no distinction between home-grown terrorism and international terrorism; I loathe and detest all forms of terrorism—it seems that an amendment is necessary. That is why I urge the Minister to review clause 26. As drafted, it places no obligation on a member of Her Majesty’s forces to pass to the PSNI documents they find that are useful for combating terrorism. Instead, they are duty bound to return the original document within 48 hours. They cannot retain the original and pass back a photocopy or photograph, because that is prohibited by clause 27, so I am not at all happy with the clause.

Sammy Wilson: We are discussing not only documents but records, which I presume could include computer records—perhaps the Minister could clarify that. In the past, the PSNI has found that in some cases it can take up to four or five weeks to get into such records because of firewalls and so on, or the ways in which records are stored. Would the hon. Lady accept that a limit of 48 hours could mean that the people who seize information may not have time even to find out what they have seized?

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making such a sensible contribution—as he has done throughout the afternoon. He makes a valuable point indeed. There have already been two trials in Northern Ireland of al-Qaeda suspects. Both gentlemen—and they were gentlemen—had various and multiple aliases and their computer records used obscure middle eastern dialects that required expert translation. That was one reason why I, as opposed to Democratic Unionist party Members, supported 90 days detention without trial. We have set it at 28 days.
Will the Minister confirm and clarify for the benefit of the Committee the point that the hon. Member for East Antrim just made? Let us say that a suspect has already been detained for 28 days, in accordance with current law, and the documents or computer records are pertinent and relate to both terrorism and the defendant. In such circumstances, surely there should be an obligation under clause 26 to pass those key documents and references to a member of the PSNI.

Mark Durkan: As has been indicated, clause 26 gives the Army power when performing searches under clauses 23 and 25 to examine and remove documents. Given what I said earlier, hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I am opposed to the provisions, but I want to clarify that. We are not persuaded that even the police should have such powers, never mind the Army. The Minister is aware that he is proposing similar powers for the police in the policing order,but he is aware from the exchanges that I am surehe enjoyed with members of the programme for Government sub-committee in the Parliament buildings that my party is not persuaded of the need for such powers even for the police, never mind the Army.

Paul Goggins: Members of the Committee are right in saying that the clause deals with the removal of documents and records for examination, and I confirm that “record”, which is not defined in the Bill, can indeed include computer records. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the SDLP reject such powers for the police as well as for the Army. Members of the Committee will know that the Government intend to provide similar powers to the police through the Policing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007. I enjoyed my exchange with colleagues in the transitional Assembly sub-committee when I met them a few days ago.
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady, who will acknowledge, of course, that a document might not at first reveal its evidential value and require a more thorough examination by the authorities. The powers that we are discussing will allow them to do that for 48 hours. Obviously, we have spoken to the police and the Army about the time that it is likely to take to decide whether those documents have evidential value. From their experiences in Northern Ireland, they think that 48 hours is sufficient. For example, they can draw on their experience at Whiterock when documents seized by authorities turned out to contain detailed plansfor the events conducted there by paramilitary organisations. It took some time to analyse those documents.
The hon. Lady rightly pressed a key issue: if during those 48 hours it becomes clear that documents contain evidence of an offence, they can be retained under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and used in a prosecution. The powers before us simply allow the authorities to remove documents for 48 hours in order to conduct their investigations. I repeat: during that time, which the authorities tell us is sufficient, if it becomes clear that the documents contain evidence, they can be retained and used as such to prosecute those who might be responsible for very serious offences. I hope that that reassures her. The 48 hour cut-off time is simply for consideration of a document’s evidential value.

Lady Hermon: Sir Nicholas, it is kind of you to allow me to respond to the Minister. I shall keep my remarks short.
I am not persuaded at all by the Minister. Clause 26 reads:
“A document or record may not be retained by virtue of subsection (1)(b) for more than 48 hours.”
The Bill needs more clarity. He said that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has assured him that48 hours is sufficient to determine whether a document or record pertains to terrorism. Those documents should then be retained for use in a criminal investigation.

Paul Goggins: I just want to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to a very important point that she made—the end of subsection (1)(b) reads:
“until the examination is completed”.
The provisions here simply confer the power to hold documents until the examination is completed and we have been assured that 48 hours is sufficient for that.

Lady Hermon: The Minister confirms my worst fears. Let us repeat: documents seized and examined for up to 48 hours are likely to contain
“information likely to be useful for terrorism”.
That examination might well confirm that those documents and records are pertinent and useful to terrorists. Please remember that clause 26 enables only a member of Her Majesty’s forces to carry out such an examination. Even if that confirms the pertinence and usefulness to terrorism of the documents, the Army can neither retain the documents nor, courtesy of clause 27, to which we are about to come, make a copy or take a photograph of them—they must be returned. That does not make sense or seem logical to me, since the offences are so serious.

Paul Goggins: I am failing to express myself clearly enough. I point out again to the hon. Lady the words in paragraph (b),
“until the examination is completed.”
The police and the Army tell us that that can be done within 48 hours. If the examination reveals information that can then be used as evidence in a prosecution, then it can be retained under different powers—under PACE rather than the Bill.

Lady Hermon: The Minister makes that point even though there is no provision in the Bill for a member of Her Majesty’s forces to be duty-bound to pass on the documents. I asked him for assurances that if Her Majesty’s forces come to the conclusion that documents that they have seized and examined within 48 hours would be useful for the purposes of killing or terrorising people, the forces would be duty-bound to transfer those documents to the police. That is certainly not clear in the wording of the clause—quite the opposite: they will not be able to retain the documents.

Paul Goggins: The powers in the clause are specific and allow documents to be retained for up to 48 hours for the examination to be completed. The hon. Lady rightly points out that the provision relates only to Army powers, because police powers are set out in other legislation. If documents reveal information pertaining to terrorism or the commission of serious offences, the police will re-seize them under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
As always, we must consider the Bill alongside other provisions. Of course, if the information pertains to serious disorder or paramilitary activity, the police will seize it and it will be used as part of a prosecution. I cannot offer a stronger reassurance.

Lady Hermon: I am enormously grateful to the Minister. That was as firm an assurance as we needed. Had he given it a few minutes ago, it would have curtailed our debate. We have reached the right conclusion—that such documents will be transferred to the PSNI if they relate to terrorism. That is not clear from the wording of the Bill. I appreciate the Minister’s clarification.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 27 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Code: effect

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in clause 34, page 23, line 8, at end insert
‘, but all breaches of the code shall subject the police officer to disciplinary procedures.’.
I shall not disappoint you this time, Sir Nicholas. Having examined the Bill more closely, I realised that it was not necessary to move the previous amendment.
Clause 34(1) refers to the effect of the code and states:
“A failure by a police officer to comply with a provision of a code shall not of itself make him liable to criminal or civil proceedings.”
My amendment is designed to give us the facility to discuss why that subsection is in the Bill and what the Minister envisages would happen if a police officer did not comply with the code, which has been compiled by the Secretary of State and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Paul Goggins: I am happy to try to clarify the powers in the clause and explain what would happen if we adopted the amendment.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would mean that any breach of the code would automatically result in disciplinary action against the officer who had transgressed it. All Committee members would expect that most breaches of the code—certainly serious ones—would result in disciplinary action under the direction of the Chief Constable.
We need to bear in mind, however, that in somerare situations a very minor breach of the code by experienced officers in difficult situations may lead the Chief Constable to conclude that it is not necessary for that officer to face disciplinary action. It is important that experienced officers doing their job in good faith and who may make a minor breach of the code can know confidently that they will get the support of their Chief Constable. We do not want minor transgressions to lead automatically to such police officers having their reputations tarnished. I remind the Committee that the issue could be subject to an investigation by the police ombudsman; if there were a complaint about the decision not to take disciplinary action, that could be investigated by the ombudsman. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister forthat explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 35 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Review

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Durkan: Given that, in our earlier exchanges, we touched on the possible role of the independent assessor, it is important that we test a number of points on clause 39. The clause provides for the Secretary of State to appoint a person to review the powers as an independent assessor. That assessor will have limited powers to oversee how the Army investigates complaints and will not have any powers to investigate complaints. That is no substitute for the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland being able to investigate the Army when it plays a supporting role for policing. The reviewer will come each year, and the British Army is obliged only to give such information and documents as the independent assessor might reasonably require. By contrast, the police ombudsman has the power in the conduct of her duties to get any document that she needs.
Given that the Minister explained earlier and that it is pretty clear in the Bill that the Army does not have to keep any records of what it does or of its justification for it in the exercise of a lot of its powers, it is hard to know what the independent assessor will assess. We are told that the annual review of how the powers work will be the subject of a robust or significant report to the Secretary of State, and so the question arises of how there is to be an independent review that does not require renewal by Parliament if there are no records in relation to the Army.
The Committee earlier dealt with clause 36, which requires the Chief Constable to make records of the use of emergency powers. Of course, that does not apply to the Army. It does not have to keep any records. It is hard to see how the role of the independent assessor is in any way significant in relation to the Army’s use of the powers.
Let us remember that the Bill institutionalises emergency powers for the British Army—emergency powers that used to have to be renewed annually in the heat of the troubles and in the face of all sorts of violence, difficulty and turmoil. Now, in a morebenign situation, they are being institutionalised as permanent. Will the Minister give us a clear assurance that the references throughout the legislation to Her Majesty’s forces will apply only to the Regular Army and not to MI5 or MI6, for instance?

Paul Goggins: The Committee needs to bear in mind when considering the clause the exceptional and limited role that the Army will play in Northern Ireland beyond the summer of this year. My hon. Friend asked about the role of the reviewer. The reviewer will be asked to respond to three specific areas. First, he will be asked to review the operation of sections 20 to 31, which are the measures that we debated this afternoon. What the reviewer has to say about that will play an important part in the Secretary of State’s judgment on whether to repeal any of the powers. The Secretary of State will consider other matters, too, but the reviewer’s report will be essential in the consideration of whether to appeal any of the powers.
The second role of the reviewer relates to military matters. The clause makes it mandatory on the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland to ensure that he passes over to the reviewer all information relating to the investigation of, and response to, complaints so that the reviewer can be satisfied that the complaints have been properly and adequately dealt with. I expect that those complaints would be few in number by virtue of the fact that the military plays a rare role in Northern Ireland at present. I confirm that the only personnel who would be subject to that would be those who were under the command of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland.
There is a third category of event or circumstance that the reviewer may consider, and that is any specific matter that the Secretary of State asks the reviewer to consider that is not already covered in the first two remits that I have outlined. For example, if the Secretary of State were concerned about the use of baton rounds in a public order scenario, he could ask the reviewer to undertake a piece of analysis and to report back to him. That is a limited role for the reviewer, but it is important both in underpinning public confidence and the confidence of the House in relation to the measures and in informing the Secretary of State and helping him to reach a judgment about when the right time might come to repeal some of the powers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Duration

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 5—Duration of sections 20 to 39—
‘(1) Sections 20 to 39 shall expire at the end of the period of12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument—
(a) repeal sections 20 to 39; or
(b) provide that those sections are not to expire at the time when they would otherwise expire under subsection (1) or in accordance with an order under this subsection but are to continue in force after that time for a period not exceeding 12 months.
(3) No order may be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

Alan Reid: I wish to speak to the new clause that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire. Its effect would be that the powers that we have just debated in clauses 20 to 39 would have to be renewed annually. On Second Reading, we asked the Minister how long he envisaged that the powers in those clauses would be in place; we would like to see a situation in which such powers were no longer necessary in Northern Ireland. Although clause 40 provides for the Secretary of State to repeal sections 20 to 39, there is no provision for Parliament to take stock of whether the powers are still necessary or to debate how they are being used. The clause allows the Secretary of State rather than Parliament to decide when such a debate might take place, and we believe that it is important that Parliament should have an annual debate.
Clause 39 very helpfully requires a reviewer to produce a report on the operation of the powers, but makes no automatic provision for Parliament to consider the reviewer’s findings. It would be useful, given the nature of the powers, for Parliament to discuss how they are being used and to take account of the views expressed by the reviewer. New clause 5 is, therefore, a simple repeal and renewal clause. It states that the provisions of sections 20 to 39 should lapse at the end of a 12-month period, but should be ableto be renewed by statutory instrument for a further12 months. That is similar to mechanisms thatare already in place—for example, the arms decommissioning schemes in Northern Ireland and control orders in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Laurence Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the provision could be extended for another 12 months, but no longer than that?

Alan Reid: No, the intention is that it could be extended for 12 months and then for a further 12 months after that.

Laurence Robertson: But no further?

Alan Reid: The intention—

Laurence Robertson: Perhaps I did not explain myself properly. Would there be only one further period, or could it be repeatedly extended?

Alan Reid: The intention is that it could be repeatedly extended at 12-month intervals.

Paul Goggins: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to give the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny to these important and significant powers. However, the level of parliamentary scrutiny that is implied in his amendment is unnecessary and I shall explain why.
We have been through an extensive process in considering the powers in part 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000, many of which are being repealed and not being replaced. However, we are replacing those that we regard as necessary to deal with the ongoing situation and the risks that may arise as a result of it. We have already reduced to a minimum the powers in the Bill.
We all look forward to the day when the situation in Northern Ireland is as secure as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom and we work to that end, but at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, we have to prepare on the basis that an additional risk of serious public disorder exists in Northern Ireland. None of us wants it, but what happened at Whiterock shows that such events may still take place. It is a matter of record that, since last summer, the activities of dissident republican groups have caused about £25 million-worth of criminal damage. There is still a residual dissident threat and a threat of paramilitaries feeding into and off organised crime.
The remaining threat must be taken seriously and it may remain for a considerable time. All of us—the police, politicians and communities—do what we can to counter that threat and to build the conditions for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland, but it is likely that these powers will be needed for some time. I will come later to the accountability mechanisms.
I will repeat what I said in an earlier debate about the role of the independent reviewer. He will report to the Secretary of State on the working of the new powers and the Secretary of State must then place his report before Parliament on an annual basis. There will be no question of the Secretary of State making secret judgments that no one knows about; the report will have to be placed before Parliament and on the record. Members of the House will be able to scrutinise the report and to ask questions about it. That is a sufficient and proportionate level of accountability; it is not necessary to return to the House every year to renew the powers in the clause.

Alan Reid: I am not convinced by the Minister’s argument, but I will reflect on it and perhaps return to the issue at a later stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lady Hermon: You are, as ever, Sir Nicholas, very gracious in allowing hon. Members to participate in stand part debates. Regarding the interpretation section in clause 41, and picking up on the Minister’s point about records, I am unhappy that this is a limited clause. Earlier on in our discussion on clauses 26 and 27, it was brought to the Committee’s attention that members of Her Majesty’s forces could seize documents or records during a search. However, the definition and interpretation in clause 41 are unclear as to whether a record includes computer documents. That was alluded to by the Minister in response to an intervention.
It would be helpful if “record” were defined in the interpretation, particularly in light of clause 27, which we did not discuss. If Committee members turn to that clause, they will see that multiple use of the word “record” creates confusion. Not only does clause 27(1) state that there is a document or record, but clause 27(1)(b) states that whoever examines it also has to make a written record of the document or record.
Clause 27(2) requires that the record describe all sorts of things. We have no idea, apart from the sense of the clause, which record we are talking about. Therefore, it is constructive to suggest to the Minister and his valiant assistants—who do listen to helpful suggestions in Committee—that, rather than clause 41 standing part unamended, it would be beneficial to include “record” as defined.

Paul Goggins: In order not to sound like a broken record, I hope it will be helpful to the hon. Lady if I take that suggestion away further to examine it. I noticed that “hovercraft” is included in the definition of “vehicle”, but not in the provisions on stop and question. I will also take that away and think about it, and I am sure that the hon. Member for East Antrim will be happy if I do so.

Peter Bone: There also seems to be an error in the definition of “vehicle” not including car.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman has once again been persistent and constructive in his interventions. We will look at that. I think that we are getting another “vehicle” coming any time soon.

Lembit Öpik: Does the definition of “aircraft” include hot air balloons and gliders?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friends were suggesting that, in fact, we might have a bandwagon heading our way. I hope that it is sufficient assurance for the hon. Member for North Down that we will look at the word “record” and whether its definition needs to be set out.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Free legal aid in magistrates’ courts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bridget Prentice: I hope not to detain the Committee too long. However, it might be helpful to its members, or at least to my hon. Friend the Minister, if I briefly speak about the legal aid provisions.
The purpose of clause 43 is to provide resident magistrates—a reference I will use for the benefit of discussing this clause only—with maximum flexibility in granting publicly funded legal representation. The current situation is that a person charged with a scheduled offence before the magistrates court must apply to the High Court for bail. The legal aid available for that High Court application is entirely separate from the legally aided representation assigned to the accused by the court for the preparation of his defence.
Under the clause, all defendants in custody will be able to apply at the earliest opportunity to the magistrates court for bail. Their bail application with therefore be made under the legislation governing publicly funded representation at magistrates court level. The will allow the resident magistrates to target publicly funded legal aid towards the specific legal need of those legally aided defendants. For example, if a resident magistrate took the view that counsel would not be required for the duration of the magistrates court proceedings, but that the accused might benefit from advice for the purposes of, say, a bail application, the clause would allow that.
It may be useful to make it clear that the clause is not to do with restricting legal aid for any financial reason. The intention is to make matters simpler and clearer for both the defendant and the magistrate concerning the application of legal aid. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Altering title of resident magistrate

Question proposed,That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bridget Prentice: I do not want to detain the Committee long on this clause, although I am glad of the opportunity to say one thing. For those who have not read “The Irish R.M.” by Somerville and Ross, I commend it to them, because we shall be changing the title “resident magistrate”, and I suspect that this will be our last opportunity to discuss such magistrates as an entity. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Private Security Industry

Question proposed,That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister say whether regulation of the private security industry will extend to the whole United Kingdom as a result of the legislation?

Paul Goggins: My understanding is that the provisions on regulation of the private security industry that apply in England will be extended to Scotland later this year—in October, I think. They will subsequently be extended to Northern Ireland through the powers taken under the Bill, though the legislation does not specify a particular date. We shall introduce them as soon as is practicable, but we have to take account of the fact that the Security Industry Authority has considerable work to do, so we must ensure that we choose the appropriate time.

Lembit Öpik: I am grateful for that clarification. Does that mean that once implementation has occurred throughout the United Kingdom, the regulations pertaining to the private security industry will be the same across the country?

Paul Goggins: I confirm that that is the case. The key change in Northern Ireland will be that each individual worker in the industry will have to be the subject of proper checks in relation to criminal records. It will also—importantly—be necessary for them to have undergone adequate and proper training. The current system simply involves licensing of companies, without reference to individual operators within those companies.
I do not know whether clauses 45 and 46 and the connected schedule will arouse much debate this afternoon, although I suspect that there is much common ground in the Committee. The measure is important in dealing with organised criminal activity in Northern Ireland. The need to tackle extortion and the type of private security that is criminal is important to the future of Northern Ireland. I am delighted that the Bill contains the measures and to be speaking in firm support of them. I hope that the Committee gives them its full support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 46 and 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lady Hermon: I will not detain the Committee, but I need some clarification on an issue that may be of some interest to you, Sir Nicholas, as a proud representative of an English constituency. Why do the provisions that enable the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission extend to England, Wales and even Scotland, which has its own judicial system? The clause makes it clear that the powers of the commission, which will be significantly increased under clauses 13 to 19, extend to England, Wales and Scotland.
Will the Minister give some justification for the far-reaching extension of the powers of the commission? Were any hon. Members from constituencies outside Northern Ireland sounded out about this? Did the commission seek the extension? Will he give examples of situations in which the commission will need the powers? Clause 13 gives the commission the power to institute proceedings of its own volition, if a victim or potential victim is involved.
Does that mean that residents of England, Scotland or Wales, who might not necessarily be British nationals, can avail themselves of the right given to them by the extension in clause 49 to oblige the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to take judicial proceedings on their behalf, even though they do not fall within the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland? The commission has not justified to my satisfaction such an enormous extension of its powers to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Laurence Robertson: I support the hon. Lady’s remarks, but I make the point that it is unsatisfactory to deal with issues under statutory instruments that apply only to Northern Ireland, not least because such measures are not amendable.
We have mentioned the fact that certain elements of the Bill could be dealt with by statutory instrument. Will the Minister confirm that a Committee to consider Northern Ireland legislation could not consider matters extending to Scotland, for example?

Paul Goggins: You were not present, Sir Nicholas, for our earlier discussions about the Human Rights Commission, but even so I think that you would rule me out of order if I were to go into all the arguments that we have had in previous debates. However, there is a simple response to hon. Members’ questions. The Human Rights Commission was established under UK-wide legislation, so the amendments must apply on the same basis, which is why the provision has been included in clause 49.

Laurence Robertson: Perhaps I should have raised this as a point of order, as it is not really the Minister’s responsibility, but I hope you will allow me to make the point, Sir Nicholas. The Bill is entitled the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill, and it is important to ensure that the Public Bill Committee accurately reflects the possible relevance of the Bill to, in this case, Scottish Members.

Paul Goggins: As the hon. Gentleman has suggested, I think that that is more a matter of House procedures generally than something to be considered in relation to the Bill. I was pleased to hear him say for the first time in our deliberations that something might not be the responsibility of the Minister.

Lady Hermon: I shall be content if the Minister will deal with the outstanding questions. Did the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission press for the provisions? I find the Minister’s justification extraordinary, since the Northern Ireland Act 1998 established the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in order to implement the Belfast agreement, which was signed on Good Friday. I did not think that the provisions extended to the entire UK, but there we are—we learn something every day. I live in Northern Ireland and I respect the commission’s jurisdiction. Will the Minister confirm, for the benefit of hon. Members who represent constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales, that anyone in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom can now ask the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to take a case to court on their behalf?

Paul Goggins: I hope that I can allay the hon. Lady’s fears. First, no one has pressed for the provisions. We have to make them for legislative reasons, not because an external body has pushed for them. The key point, which I hope will reassure her, is that although the legislation in question is UK-wide—we need to amend it because of the changes that we are making in Committee—the provisions do not apply outside Northern Ireland. For example, the power to enter institutions applies only in Northern Ireland. The matter is simply legislative: because the legislation is UK-wide, we have to amend the UK-wide legislation, but the powers relate only to Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Complaints and misconduct relating to the Security Service in Northern Ireland
‘(1) In the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32)—
(a) after section 60ZA insert—
“60ZB The Security Service
(1) An agreement for the establishment in relation to members of the staff of the Security Service of procedures corresponding or similar to any of those established by virtue of this Part may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, be made between the Ombudsman and the Security Service.
(2) Where no such procedures are in force in relation to the Security Service, the Secretary of State may by order establish such procedures.
(3) An agreement under this section may at any time be varied or terminated with the approval of the Secretary of State.
(4) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult—
(a) the Ombudsman; and
(b) the Security Service.
(5) Nothing in any other statutory provision shall prevent the Security Service from carrying into effect procedures established by virtue of this section.
(6) No such procedures shall have effect in relation to anything done by a member of the staff of the Security Service outside Northern Ireland or in relation to terrorism not connected to Northern Ireland.”; and
(b) in section 61(5) (reports), at the end of paragraph (c) insert “; and
(d) if the report concerns the Security Service, to the Security Service.”.’.—[Mark Durkan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mark Durkan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I should explain to hon. Members that we modelled the new clause on section 55 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which gives the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland relevant powers over Serious Organised Crime Agency staff in Northern Ireland. At present, as per Patten, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has primacy in matters of national security, and the police ombudsman has the power to investigate complaints regarding its handling of such matters. That accountability has helped enormously to build confidence in the new beginning for policing.
Again and again, the police ombudsman has investigated complaints that have gone to the heart of national security, concerning issues such as the Omagh investigation and Stormontgate, and the Government have yet to raise any serious complaint. No one has even attempted publicly to argue that it has been a bad thing. The sky has not fallen because the police ombudsman’s office has had that reach into activities and information relating to national security; far from it, because the office’s function has been one of the pillars of confidence in the new beginning for policing.
On Monday, the truth will emerge again with the police ombudsman’s report into the murder of Raymond McCord. It is widely expected that the report will show, among other things, that an RUC informer murdered again and again—Catholics, Protestants, civilians, paramilitaries and even a minister of religion—and that it was allowed to go on. That is the reality of what has happened in Northern Ireland—collusion and complicity. If the matter had involved MI5 work, we might not have found out about it, and if it were to happen in future under the Government’s proposed regime, we would not find out about it. Under current plans, MI5 will deal with much of the work related to domestic terrorism.
A lie is being sold, and some foolish people have bought it, that MI5’s role in the future of Northern Ireland—its expanded headquarters and its new recruits—is all about international terrorism. The reality is that a large part of MI5’s work in Northern Ireland will still concern domestic terrorism. The Minister’s comments in Committee on Tuesday reflected that, because he recognised that the issues dealt with in the Bill’s earlier clauses touched on not only criminal justice but national security. He was equally explicit then that non-jury courts would relate only to domestic terrorism and Northern Irish paramilitaries specifically, not international terrorism. It is clear that MI5 will continue to play a significant role in that area.
It is proposed that primacy in national security will move in October from the Police Service of Northern Ireland to MI5. If national security functions have not been impaired or compromised in any way by the police ombudsman’s power to pursue information in investigations relating to national security, including information in the hands of MI5, what is the argument for saying that there is a risk in allowing that to continue, if primacy shifts?
It is clear that the shift of primacy and the bogus separation sold to Sinn Fein in the Prime Minister’s statement is about separating the work of MI5 from the scrutiny and challenge of the police ombudsman’s office. No one with possible cause for concern or complaint about the work of MI5 in the future will be able to go to the police ombudsman, whereas they can do that now. It is clear that under Government proposals the police ombudsman will not be able to investigate what MI5 does in Northern Ireland, which clearly shows that there will be a loss of accountability.
The Prime Minister’s statement last week sought to tell us that there will be no diminution in police accountability in Northern Ireland, which will be true of PNSI accountability. It is true that the PSNI will be no less accountable to the ombudsman, so the assertion in the Prime Minister’s statement is technically true. However, what if someone were to say, “Well, what about intelligence policing in Northern Ireland? Will that be less accountable under the new arrangements or not?”? The fact is that it will be less accountable. To that extent, the line in the Prime Minister’s statement is misleading and calculatedly misleading, as are some other things in his statement, such as that the police officers who will interact with MI5 will be “PSNI headquarters staff”. That might sound the same as saying that they will be based at PSNI headquarters, but it does not mean that. They might be PSNI headquarters staff, but there is no guarantee that they will be based in PSNI headquarters. Again, people who say that there will be no co-location and that they have persuaded the Government of that are either buying a lie or selling one.
The structures that are supposed to hold MI5 to account are, quite simply, useless. Only people who believe that they were subject to MI5 surveillance and attention can bring complaints against MI5 through the investigatory powers tribunal. Do not just take my word for that, because it is stated on the tribunal’s own website. The investigatory powers tribunal is pretty clear about who can and cannot bring a complaint, and it is only those who have been the subject of attention from MI5.
We therefore face the ludicrous situation in which Osama bin Laden can complain about MI5, but the Omagh families in Northern Ireland, who were let down by MI5, cannot complain, even though MI5 did not bother to pass on a bomb warning about Omagh for seven and a half years. It is bad enough that people who may be victims of MI5’s negligence or abuse of power cannot bring complaints, but even if they were able to bring complaints, do complaints to the tribunal go anywhere? The tribunal investigated 380 complaints from its foundation in 2000 until 31 December 2004. How many of those complaints were upheld? Not one. How many reasons were ever given? Not one. That is not accountability, and it is certainly not accountability in terms of the Northern Ireland standards that are now needed as per the Patten report and the Patten vision. Hon. Members might be happy enough to have that level of accountability for themselves, but MI5 will not play as concentrated and sensitive a role in their constituencies as it will in mine.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is touching on a very important subject. I looked, and continue to look, very closely at the Omagh situation. Does he not feel that something as important as what one might describe as the overseeing of the security services should be done on a national basis—a United Kingdom basis? He may well have a point that it is necessary, because it is possible for people to get away with anything on the basis of “Oh, it’s national security.” I am uncomfortable with that as well, because almost anything can be excused, but does he not think that the matter should be tackled more on a UK basis?

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I certainly have no case against it, but obviously I am trying to deal with the Northern Ireland-specific situation. MI5 will be given a distinctively different role in Northern Ireland from what it has had before. It is being given big new headquarters and an enhanced and enlarged role. Staff are being recruited, and it is deliberately recruiting people with special branch experience. We are particularly concerned about whether that is a means of creating some sort of “continuity” special branch. Remember, people in the old RUC special branch were involved in some of the worst aspects of collusion or complicity, which involved allowing things to happen when interventions by other officers might have prevented them.
We are trying to deal with Northern Ireland-specific issues. It is understood that MI5 will have a role in Northern Ireland in respect of not only international terrorism, but what is called domestic terrorism. The Minister’s arguments the other day were consistent with that. We want to make sure that the police ombudsman has the same reach in respect of those intelligence policing activities as it has on Northern Ireland citizens to deal with Northern Ireland affairs, and that that is not diminished.

Sammy Wilson: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is making a case for extended powers for one of the SDLP’s favourite institutions—the police ombudsman. The Chief Constable has publicly insisted that his demand that all human intelligence sources be handled by the PSNI in Northern Ireland has been met. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that his scenario could not exist, as the police ombudsman will have the powers to review PSNI officers, and human intelligence sources will be handled by them?

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman needs to look at other sources; the assurance on which he relies is not the only statement on the issue. The picture is not as straightforward as he suggests. In respect of sources that will be handled by the PSNI, remember that the key issue is primacy.
Other people are being foolish in trying to sell the false notion of separation between MI5 and the PSNI. The hon. Gentleman suggests that all agents would be handled by the PSNI, but the fact is that whoever handles those agents, a lot of them will function according to the MI5 agenda and interest. That further confuses the separation picture as well as the degree of interaction in that handling. If primacy lies with MI5, that has to be a worry.
Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman also suggested, the SDLP is advocating not extension of the police ombudsman’s powers, but retention of the scope of those powers as they currently apply to national security issues. At present, the police ombudsman can seek information and inquire into the activities of MI5 in so far as they relate to matters of intelligence policing conducted by the PSNI. Matters that can be looked into now will not be able to be examined after primacy switches.
If the system has worked well until now, with no crisis having been created and no public interest having been compromised, why the shift? Some Committee members may ask how the police ombudsman can be able to pursue complaints against the PSNI and its officers and against a UK-wide body. The fact is that the police ombudsman can already investigate actions of staff of UK-wide bodies, such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Legislation coming to Parliament will give the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland the power to do likewise for Revenue and Customs staff and immigration staff when their work touches on and reaches into policing matters.
If that is okay for those agencies and is compatible and consistent with Patten, how can it be right to remove the police ombudsman’s powers of scrutiny and accountability in intelligence policing? That goes to the heart of confidence in policing in Northern Ireland and is where the worst abuses lie. Not only people with a political axe to grind but victims have genuine grievances and misgivings about how things were handled and how things that could have been prevented were not.
The new clause is essentially about ensuring that the police ombudsman is still able to perform the function that was envisaged before Patten. We must remember that she was able to do so even then, before we had Patten and before Secretary of State after Secretary of State assured the House that the situation was benign. When there was a much greater threat and more sensitive activity on national security and intelligence, the police ombudsman’s office was entrusted with the powers in question, but now for some reason it will not be. The idea that we can trust MI5 in a new role with diminished accountability does not square with experience in Northern Ireland or with the reality that the Government tell us we should embrace.

Paul Goggins: I credit my hon. Friend with one thing: he is consistent and persistent in raising the issue. He has done so for a considerable time now. We disagree and I am sure that we will continue to do so this afternoon, but let us agree on one point: the police ombudsman has done an extremely good job of ensuring that transparency and accountability in Northern Ireland is second to none in the world. There is more scrutiny, accountability and transparency in policing in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. That has been needed to create conditions in which, we hope, the whole community can have confidence in and support the police and the rule of law. Any democratic society requires that.
Despite the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for East Antrim, I am certain that my hon. Friend is seeking to extend the powers of the police ombudsman to scrutiny of the Security Service. The Government do not agree with that. My hon. Friend pointed out that other agencies involved in law enforcement, such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency, will come within the purview of the police ombudsman. He is right: that is because such bodies are law enforcement agencies.The national security intelligence service is not a law enforcement agency and it would therefore be inappropriate for it to come directly under the ombudsman’s scrutiny.
I know that my hon. Friend does not accept this argument, but I shall put it anyway: there is already scrutiny of and accountability for the securityservice. There are the three groups of commissioners who oversee various elements of covert work in Northern Ireland:—the intelligence commissioner, the interception of communications commissioner andthe surveillance commissioner. There is also the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, on which my hon. Friend went into some detail, which was established in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
My hon. Friend cited the case of Omagh, as he and his colleagues do regularly, and I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for East Antrim. The allegations that my hon. Friend made this afternoon on the failure to pass on information relating to Omagh have been refuted clearly by the Chief Constable. Our legal advice confirms that the view of the president of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is that it has appreciable discretion to consider whether to hear and determine complaints against the intelligence and security agencies. It has more discretion than my hon. Friend gives it credit for, including the discretion to consider complaints from people who are not the subject of the surveillance—in other words, third parties can make a complaint. I keep hearing the argument that my hon. Friend has made today and I say to him in absolute sincerity that if people believe that there are grounds for a complaint, he should encourage them to make one, rather than persist with the argument that it is impossible for them to do so. Our legal advice is that it is possible for a third party to make a complaint, and the tribunal is the proper place to do so.
Where the police ombudsman has reason, consistent with her legal powers, to investigate the activities of a PSNI officer, she will continue to have the same powers as she has now. In that connection, the Security Service and the ombudsman’s office have been working together to agree arrangements governing the ombudsman’s access to sensitive information held by the Security Service. Sometimes, when conducting her own investigations in relation to her own remit, the ombudsman will need access to such sensitive information. It is a matter of record that the Security Service and the ombudsman are discussing arrangements for the sharing of such information and the drawing-up of protocols, which will also involve the Chief Constable. However, that applies only in relation to the investigations that the ombudsman is permitted to carry out, which does not and will not include investigations into staff working for the Security Service.
In addition to the scrutiny bodies that I have outlined, and following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Lord Carlile will also carry out annual reviews of the operation of the arrangements. I should remind the Committee that those arrangements are normal and that it is abnormal for the national security intelligence security to be accountable to the Chief Constable in the way that it is at present. It is normal for such arrangements to be back on a UK-wide basis, and that should be celebrated as part of the return to normality that we all want to see in Northern Ireland. In conducting his investigations, Lord Carlile will consult the Chief Constable, the Policing Board and the police ombudsman, as well as talking to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and taking account of their views before reaching his own conclusions. Therefore, in addition to all the oversight that is already in place, there is also the role of Lord Carlile.

Lembit Öpik: I think that we can all agree that Lord Carlile is one of the finest Members of the other place and that he comes from one of the finest constituencies in the land.

Laurence Robertson: Where is that?

Lembit Öpik: The constituency of Montgomeryshire, for those who are not familiar with Lord Carlile’s Commons history. Although we can all agree that he does exceptional work in his scrutiny role, the Minister will remember, as the hon. Member for Foyle and I said during our discussion of clause 7, that Lord Carlile’s advice has been ignored. Although the Minister highlights the role played by Lord Carlile and others in the scrutiny of the security services, one of our concerns is that the Government may ignore their advice. To some extent, that compromises the case that the Minister is making to try to reassure us.

Paul Goggins: I do not agree with that remark. Lord Carlile has established a first-class reputation for his work and makes his recommendations. Although Ministers do not always agree with his conclusions, it is interesting that the Prime Minister was happy with his work and had enough confidence in him to invite him to take on his current role. Indeed, Lord Carlile was happy to accept that role, and I am sure that he will carry it out in his customary style. That will help to underpin the new and normal arrangements for national security intelligence to which we are moving.
To conclude, in addition to the measures that I have outlined, we have indicated that, as far as possible, we will make available to the public a high number of the memorandums of understanding drawn up between the Security Service, the ombudsman and, indeed, the Chief Constable. We have also indicated that we are happy for human rights advisers to the Policing Board to give their views on those memorandums. We are trying to be as open and transparent as possible, but we are not acceding to the request that the ombudsman should have full scrutiny powers over national security intelligence service personnel. In the end, it comes down to the fact that in Northern Ireland we have a police service that is open to greater scrutiny than any other in the world. As I have said, that should give us confidence.
Issues of national security cannot be subject to the same level of transparency as matters of policing. There are reasons why that is so. I am not saying that there should not be any accountability. I have just listed a range of measures by which the Security Service is held to account. As the hon. Member for North Down has reminded us, we face dire threats from international terrorism as well as the remaining dissident threat and other threats. It is important for the security and safety of ordinary people of Northern Ireland that the Security Service can do its job in an accountable way, but in a way that is not suited to the remit of the police ombudsman.
I regret to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle that he and I will continue to disagree on the issue. However, I know that he will carry on making his point. He will do so as genuinely and constructively as he can, but we have to part company on the issue.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Minister, at least for his last point. There is not much else for which I can thank him, but I genuinely thank him for what he said. He has made that point privately both to me and others. I hope that he accepts that, in advancing such arguments as we have been doing for a long time, neither I nor any of my colleagues are playing electoral politics. We are not. If the hon. Gentleman does accept that, I hope that he will convey it to the Secretary of State who has accused us of doing precisely that. The right hon. Gentleman has pretended to the BBC that he does not understand our worries or what we said about the Prime Minister’s written statement last week, and says that we are just playing electoral politics. We are not.
Other people might be approaching the matter with an eye to electoral politics, and spinning things for the Sinn Fein leadership and so on. We are not approaching anything to do with policing, justice and the Patten vision with an eye to electoral politics. In terms of electoral politics it has cost us to uphold Patten, implement Patten and take our stand for Patten. We are not playing electoral politics and we have never approached such issues from that standpoint. I hope that the Minister, who genuinely accepts that point, can persuade his right hon. Friend to accept it, too.

Paul Goggins: It has been fairly evident from our debates that an election is due in Northern Ireland. Various points have been made sharply with one eye on 7 March. I rejoice in that because it means that we can be confident that there will be an election and restored devolution, something that we all celebrate as and when it happens. I have every confidence that it will.
To underline my comments to my hon. Friend, I repeat that he has been consistent and persistent in raising such issues. He has not just raised them in recent weeks. He has done so over a period of time. I want to put that on the record.

Mark Durkan: I think that the Minister is referring to a motivation for the Prime Minister’s written statement last week and the fact that it was signalled in advance to Sinn Fein. The first time that many hon. Members knew that it would be issued was as a result of the Sinn Fein press release the day before, which purported to say what was in it. That was obviously to do with electoral politics, but not the old axis of Sinn Fein-IRA; it showed the new axis of Sinn Fein-NIO. It was clearly about electoral advancement. When some of us are pre-emptively attacked before a statement is issued courtesy of a Sinn Fein statement, we believe that we have the right to defend ourselves. We also think that we have the right to point out those parts of the Prime Minister’s statement that are pure figment, and those parts that are mere fig leaf in respect of Sinn Fein’s pretences about the issue.
I go back to the substance of the debate. The Minister made a strong point about the role of Lord Carlile. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made a valid comment. How can we rest on the subject of the Government’s reliance on the strong role for Lord Carlile when they feel free to dismiss his advice and clear recommendations? He made it clear that if there were to be any retention or renewal of emergency or special powers in Northern Ireland they should be renewed annually, as before, and not made permanent. The Government tell us, “Lord Carlile—that’s good enough,” but those of us who do not agree with his finding that the powers are appropriate are not convinced that he is the right person. When we see that the Government ignore his key caveat that the powers have to be annually renewable, we are left to ask, “If we are not content with his judgment on one point and the Government are not on another, what’s the big deal?”
Let us remember that all that Lord Carlile will dois review. That is no substitute for the police ombudsman’s complaint and investigation role. The Minister also raised the point of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, suggesting that I should “encourage” people to complain to it. Given the record of how it deals with complaints and the fact that no reason has even been given, I am not sure that the word “encourage” describes how one could convince people to go to the tribunal.
Significantly, the Omagh families have made their case to a number of people about the difficulties that they see. They tried to take their case to the head of MI5, for instance, they wrote and sought meetings, they wrote to Ministers and so on. Nobody has given them the formal advice, “Oh, there’s no point coming to us with this. It’s really a matter for the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.” It is not some misunderstanding on my part that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal deals only with people who have been investigated by MI5, but that is clearly the understanding of the tribunal itself and what is understand by anyone who consults its website.
I am not satisfied that the Minister has answered the points. We are not looking to extend the reach of the police ombudsman in Northern Ireland into what people might call matters of national security. We want to allow the police ombudsman to continue to have a reach into those matters that citizens of Northern Ireland would have cause for concern or complaint about that related to matters relating to Northern Ireland. We are talking about sealing and preserving the role of the police ombudsman that has helped to underpin the new beginning to policing and has not undermined national security.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

Repeal of conditions for the devolution of justice
‘Section 16 of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 is hereby repealed.’.—[Mark Durkan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mark Durkan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 4 purports to address a change made by earlier legislation on the devolution of justice and policing in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 provided that the devolution of justice required cross-community consent in the Assembly. On current party strengths, the votes of the Ulster Unionist party, the SDLP and Sinn Fein together would be sufficient to achieve that consent. That clear provision in the Northern Ireland Act was amended by the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, which provided instead that the devolution of justice could not occur unless the First Minister and Deputy First Minister moved a motion approved by the higher threshold of parallel consent. The key difference, therefore, is that on current party strengths the consent of the Democratic Unionist party is needed. Also on current party strengths, a DUP Member would hold the office of First Minister, which would give it another veto.
Hon. Members might recall that at the time when the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was passed, we warned that the DUP might be inclined to abuse those vetoes, and so it has proved with the stand-off between Sinn Fein and the DUP. Sinn Fein will make a clear move on policing only if the DUP agrees a date for the devolution of justice and policing, but the latter is content to hold the triple-lock veto in its pocket; so the DUP has essentially given Sinn Fein a veto on restoration, and Sinn Fein has given the DUP a veto on policing. Which will blink next? The Prime Minister cannot wink for both of them.
I believe that the Secretary of State recognises some of the difficulties that he created—to be fair to him, he did not start it—when he legislated for the triple lock in the 2006 Act. In a paper that he released over the Christmas recess he indicated that he wants to put a time limit on the triple lock so that it is not indefinite. At a later stage, we will make our own proposals to address that issue. However, to revert to the position of allowing devolution to be triggered by cross-community consent in the Assembly and not allowing things to be dependent entirely on a DUP veto, which they have been abusing, would be one step forward. That is the intended effect of the new clause. It would restore the position provided for by this House in the 1998 Act.

Sammy Wilson: Some of us have listened to the rhetoric of the SDLP for a very long time about the need for confidence, cross-community support and inclusiveness—arguments that it has used time and time again to ensure that Sinn Fein is included in every decision in Northern Ireland. The explanation given by the hon. Member for Foyle for the new clause was staggering. He has shown clearly that inclusiveness as defined by him and his party must include only the people with whom he agrees or is associated, but certainly not those opposed to his point of view. That, of course, is what the new clause is all about.
The reason why parallel consent was required in the 2006 Act was simple: the devolution of policing and justice is of such importance that it can only take place when there is absolute confidence within the community that the right conditions have been met. That means that the views of whichever parties happen to represent the majority of unionists and nationalists cannot be ignored. To talk of inclusiveness, without recognising that the support of the majority grouping on either side is required, is plain daft.
The hon. Member for Foyle has hit on the problem that is caused. Sufficient confidence needs to be generated on both sides of the community. It might well be that nationalists are happy: indeed the SDLP indicated in the Committee on the Preparation for Government last summer that it wished to see the devolution of policing and justice on the day of devolution. It is one thing to say that nationalists are happy about the devolution of policing and justice and that it should therefore happen, but that ignores the confidence that is required on the Unionist side.
Parallel consent was an attempt to ensure that the devolution of policing and justice would and could only happen in circumstances in which it could work. That is important. The devolution of policing and justice in the absence of parallel consent—a move away from parallel consent—would create difficulties in a newly formed Assembly, and difficulties for confidence in devolved policing and justice.
The DUP wishes to see the devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland, just as it wishes to see the devolution of all other functions. That has been put on the record of the House on a number of occasions and on the record of the discussions at Stormont, at which some SDLP Members were present. The hon. Member for Foyle may have been present at some of the meetings in which I was involved. However, devolution can only be done in circumstances where there is confidence. We hope that that will happen sooner rather than later. Generating confidence is not solely within the remit of Unionists generally or the DUP in particular. The lack of confidence is a result of the attitude of Sinn Fein, which will be one of the major parties to deal with policing in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The job of working towards a position that generates confidence is for Sinn Fein.
This form of words on devolution was used in the comprehensive agreement, in discussions in the summer at Stormont and by the leader of the DUP in the House. We wish devolution to happen as soon as is possible, but it cannot happen unless there is confidence on both sides of the community that it can work and unless those who will be involved in policing and justice matters are genuinely supportive of the police. For that reason, parallel consent is important. It is the one way of ensuring that the decision is inclusive and cross-community, and that it will work in the long term.

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has raised a matter that clearly requires urgent consideration, as we move gradually towards full support for policing, the rule of law and devolved government. I warmly welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for East Antrim, who said this afternoon—not for the first time—that his party agrees with and wants the devolution of justice and policing. Of course, as I set out in the St. Andrews agreement, the Government believe that if we have full support for the rule of law, policing and the courts, and if we get the election and devolved government, we can devolve policing and justice by May 2008. That is possible so long as all parties work in good faith towards that end.
My hon. Friend invites the Committee to overturn Parliament’s decision on the provisions for the devolution of policing and justice. Of course I shall argue against that and will encourage the Committee not to accept his arguments. It has always been the Government’s position that policing and justice can be devolved only on a sustainable basis with broad, cross-community support. Consistent with that position, it is our view that the support of a majority of both sectors of the community in Northern Ireland is essential if the devolution of policing and justice is to succeed. That is why section 16 of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 makes it clear that the Secretary of State cannot introduce an order to devolve policing and justice unless both the following conditions are met: the motion asking that he do so is tabled by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly and that motion receives support in the Assembly from a majority of designated nationalists and a majority of designated unionists—the so-called 50:50:50 method.
The hon. Member for East Antrim was right. Because the issue is controversial—it goes to the heart of confidence in policing and sustainable democratic, peaceful conditions in Northern Ireland—it is right that a higher threshold be set in relation to it than is, perhaps, the case for the devolution of other matters. We make no apology for that. It is clear; it is in the legislation; and most importantly, it can be done if the parties act in good faith and work together to ensure that it can happen.
Let me make one final point, which might help the Committee. The transitional Assembly’s programme for government committee sub-group on policing and justice, which I had the pleasure of engaging with a few days ago, is considering various departmental models to support policing and justice once they have been devolved. As part of that, it is considering a paper that was put to it in December by my right hon. Friendthe Secretary of State, which sets out a further departmental model that might be capable of commanding support across the parties. The sub-group has not yet come forward with any conclusions. It might do so in the near future, and if it does, Ministers will need to give urgent and careful consideration to what action the Government may need to take in light of those findings, conclusions and recommendations. I draw that to the Committee’s attention as a matter of courtesy, because it might be necessary to return to those issues on Report and to debate matters that have not arisen in Committee.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Member for East Antrim suggested that the SDLP is somehow parting from the principle of inclusiveness—it is not—or from the principle of cross-community support. It is not. We seek to return to the provisions of the 1998 Act, which legislated for the Good Friday agreement and are based on cross-community support. That is the basis on which we say that devolution should happen. That is what the 1998 Act provided for and the Patten report envisaged, and it is what we are trying to achieve. Instead, however, he is trying to say that the only test of cross-community support should be the parallel consent or the 50:50:50 method that the Minister mentioned.
Let us be clear: the hon. Member for East Antrim and his party did not like parallel consent when it came to electing the First and Deputy First Ministers. They did not want a test of cross-community support then. No, there had to be no vote at all—just one party nominating, with exclusive rights of nomination, and the other party doing the same. Under the 1998 Act, the First and Deputy First Ministers had to be proposed and accepted by parallel consent, and that is the only instance under the agreement in which it has happened. One other narrow provision requires parallel consent, but it has thankfully never had to be used.
The DUP did away with parallel consent to elect the First and Deputy First Ministers, and Sinn Fein went along with the DUP. In everything else that is subject and open to cross-community support, a 60 per cent. Assembly majority would suffice, provided that at least 40 per cent. of nationalists and Unionists were part of that majority. The DUP and Sinn Fein have moved away from the wider and more flexible yardstick of cross-community support to parallel consent and 50:50:50, because that gives each party a veto, which they can abuse tactically to hold the rest of us hostage and to hold Government to ransom for all sorts of concessions, some of which have nothing to do with the issue that they are vetoing. The DUP might be comfortable using the parallel consent veto, but it should be remembered that it is going into the hands of others as well. We are not departing from cross-community support; we are trying to return to it.
I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for East Antrim on his willingness to see the devolution of justice. He strikes a different tone from many of his colleagues who said, particularly during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, that they did not envisage that the devolution of justice and policing would happen in their lifetime, competing to say how many lifetimes it would take. I made the observation elsewhere that we have known for many years that there is a strong Free Presbyterian presence in the DUP, but it was news to us that there were so many Buddhists. It was going to take so many lifetimes that they would have to come back to stop the devolution of justice and policing.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman takes a different tone. There is a bit more realism about the devolution of justice and policing, and the Secretary of State has helped by pointing out that considerable devolution has already taken place. The establishment of the PSNI has devolved to the Policing Board and the Chief Constable, separately or between them, powers that used to lie with the NIO and the Secretary of State.
We are caught in a debate now because Sinn Fein has exaggerated and distorted devolution issues for its own purposes, and it has served the DUP to counter-exaggerate them, which is why we heard about so many lifetimes. I am glad to see a bit more realism and perspective. That being so, why do we need to retain the vetoes in this way?
The Minister has told us that Parliament cannot be asked to reverse what it provided for in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006. In the same remarks, he told us that a sub-committee ofthe programme for government committee in the transitional Assembly is considering the Secretary of State’s paper of late December, but that paper says that, if a vote does not take place under the 2006 Act to devolve and appoint a Minister by May 2008, the Government will take all necessary steps to make that happen, including appointing a Minister for justice to work in a devolved capacity. That completely contradicts what he said—that it could never be done and that cross-community support was absolutely necessary. Contradictions and limitations are emerging in the Government’s position.

Paul Goggins: To clarify my remarks, I was simply pointing out that my hon. Friend was inviting the Committee to overturn the previous settled view of Parliament. Obviously, that is possible, but I was making it clear that he is encouraging us to subvert a decision previously taken by Parliament. That is just a matter of fact.

Mark Durkan: When we look at the Minister’s remarks we will see that he said a little more than that in respect of his emphasis when echoing the hon. Member for East Antrim on the prerequisite of having cross-community support as measured by parallel consent before anything could happen. The Secretary of State’s paper shows that he now recognises that a difficulty has been caused by creating an open-ended veto in the form of the triple lock.
It is hard to see how anyone will rely on the certainty of a date such as May 2008 if one party can postpone it indefinitely just by using the existing legislative provision; it needs to be qualified, checked or overridden in some other way. It seems clear from the paper that that is what the Secretary of State is minded to do. It would not surprise me if, later on in consideration of either the Bill or subsequent legislation, we found ourselves doing precisely that. It would not be the first time that the Government had produced a legislative multi-point turn on the same issue, taking first one direction and then another. That is what will happen.
I am not asking members of the Committee to subvert the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006; I am asking them to revert to the sensible provisions, under the Good Friday agreement and the 1998 Act, for cross-community support to trigger the devolution of justice and policing. Those provisions were agreed on a multi-party basis, not because they suited the demands of one party or another.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Paul Goggins: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I am pleased to rise to express my thanks to all those who have been involved in our deliberations. Three things have been apparent to me throughout. First, we have had ample time to carry out our discussions and to deal with challenging questions, as is evident from the stage that we have reached. I am sure that we all have welcomed having enough time and not having to deal with other pressures that force decisions in an untimely way.
Secondly, all members of the Committee have shown good humour and courtesy in our discussion of difficult and important issues. It is always good when the House and its Members operate in that way.
Thirdly, I note the sheer hard work that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee undertook to prepare for these sittings and for making their arguments, and I include my hon. Friends and others who may not always have participated in our debates, but who were always there when it counted.
 I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who led on several issues. I am grateful for that, and am also grateful to the Whip and his colleagues, who helped us to stay in tune.
I say to you, Sir Nicholas, and to Mrs. Anderson that we very much appreciate the way that you have chaired our proceedings. Without doubt, you helped to keep the matter in hand clear, and you sometimes reminded us that we were making an intervention, not a speech.
I thank among the hard workers all my officials,who worked diligently in Committee, but also in preparation for it. Much work lies ahead on some promises that I made to reconsider the wording of various parts of the Bill. The Committee is a point of scrutiny. It is important that we bear in mind all the arguments that have been made, and we will do that.
Finally, I thank the Clerk and Hansard for their untiring and unstinting efforts to keep us well advised and to record our proceedings. Again, thanks to you, Sir Nicholas, for presiding over the Committee.

Laurence Robertson: Further to that point of order,Sir Nicholas. I join the Minister in thanking you and Mrs. Anderson for giving up so much time to chair the Committee, and for the competent and occasionally humorous way in which you did it.
I thank my hon. Friends, who have been with me most of the time. As the Minister said, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes, who, unfortunately, is not with us today, and my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough and for Wellingborough made several telling interventions.
I thank the Minister for his approach to the Bill. He said at the outset that he would listen and think about the issues. He has quite a bit of work to do before the Bill becomes law, as he kindly said that he would reconsider several matters.
On a wider basis, I thank the Northern Ireland Office for its approach to legislation. It offers briefings to Opposition Members and facilities when we travel to the Province. That is very much appreciated. Such actions help to avoid unnecessary party political squabbles and enhance the quality of the debates. I thank the Minister’s officials, the Clerk and Hansard for their help as well.
I wish the Bill well. We highlighted several issues and concerns. They may sometimes appear to be small, but they can have a disproportionately bad effect, so we have been right to raise them. I have very much enjoyed the Committee, and I look forward to the next stage of consideration.

Lembit Öpik: Further to that point of order,Sir Nicholas. I congratulate the Minister, who has been annoyingly misguided from time to time—that is, when he did not take on my point of view—but nevertheless proved himself a lovely fellow. He has a beguiling manner, which will no doubt put him in good stead as we approach other deadlines.
In parenthesis, may I observe to Northern Ireland colleagues that it is obviously possible to get all the work done well ahead of a deadline and not force the Government to postpone things yet again? There has been a remarkable degree of joint working between parties in the past four sittings.
I make a serious point to the Minister: he can see that when the Government give space for proper debate and the opportunity to amend legislation, things work quite well. That is a further reason to learn from the positive example of the Committee the lesson that if statutory instruments were also amendable, he would probably receive a positive response. The Government have nothing to fear by introducing the ability to amend in that context.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury said that there is unfinished business, which we shall return to on Report, as right hon. and hon. Members know. I therefore finish by thanking you, Sir Nicholas, for your irrepressible charm as our Chairman. You make democracy a delight, and it has been a real pleasure to serve under you these past four sittings.

Mark Durkan: Further to that point of order,Sir Nicholas. I pick up where the hon. Gentleman left off, by thanking you—not only for your charm, but for your courtesy and special consideration of my position. Unlike the other hon. Members who have spoken, I find it hard to thank everybody for being here for the whole time, when I was not. However, I hope that that is fully understood and that, as we finish today, hon. Members appreciate that absence all the more.
I thank all the Committee staff who have supported us in our consideration. I thank the Minister for the degree to which he listened and responded. He perhaps did not heed or accept, but at least he listened and responded in a clear and respectful manner.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury touched on the fact that there are some difficult issues in the Bill, and the Minister said that he would consider some matters further. Other matters will have to be considered further, although that will be based not only on the issues that have been aired in Committee. However, that is for a later stage, so I thank you again,Sir Nicholas, and your co-Chair, Mrs. Anderson, under whom I did not serve due to other circumstances.

Lady Hermon: Further to that point of order,Sir Nicholas. I regard you as being in a league of your own when it comes to chairing Committees. I have had the great fortune of sitting on many Committees that you have chaired, many of which were controversial and sensitive, given the suffering that people have gone through in Northern Ireland. You are always exceedingly gracious, good tempered and patient, in allowing lengthy interventions, yet making all members of the Committee, including the Minister, feel that they have had ample time to air their views. I pay you the warmest tribute.
I am sure that Mrs. Anderson was looking forward to seeing all the Committee members back next week, so she will be enormously disappointed that we shall not be sitting then. She was entirely charming in chairing the Committee this morning, so I extend thanks to her, too.
I also thank—this is not a hierarchy—the Doorkeepers, who had to open, close and lock the door, aided and abetted by the hon. Member for Foyle, who made use of his time when he was here. I also thank the Hansard staff, who kindly returned by post this morning my only surviving copy of the Belfast agreement, which is a rare collector’s item.

Sammy Wilson: Soon to be extinct.

Lady Hermon: It is never to be extinct. That brings me to the point in play—the teasing of the hon. Gentleman, who was very tolerant of that teasing, which came not only from me, but from hon. Members throughout the Committee.
I also thank the officials. I have been critical of the drafting, but in a previous incarnation I taught in the law faculty at Queen’s university and did some proof-reading. It is the main aim of all members of the Committee and all officials to get it right—for Her Majesty’s forces, the judges, the judiciary, the ombudsmen and Police Service of Northern Ireland officers, who have to apply the law that we introduce in the House.
Last but certainly not least, I thank the Minister. As always, it has been a delight to tease, cajole and persuade him, and to try to entice him into changing his mind on various matters. It is exceedingly difficult to fall out with him. He is an exceedingly good Minister and it has been delightful to see him in Committee. In fact, this has been one of the nicest Committees of which I have had the good fortune to be a member.
The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs responded at a very opportune time this afternoon on the matter of bail conditions—I have to say that until then I had never understood them. The demise of resident magistrates could not possibly have been handled any more elegantly and fairly. So, goodbye to the resident magistrates and thank you to the Ministers. The Committee has been wonderful, and I am rather sorry that we are not continuing next week. I thank all Members and the Chairman.

Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order,Sir Nicholas. I am going to be dead brief, because I want to catch the plane home this evening, and other Members want to get away too. My absent colleague felt that he could leave things in my hands, though I do not know whether his confidence was well placed. On his behalf and my own, I thank all the staff and everyone who has served the Committee over the past couple of days.
It is easier to thank a Minister when the Bill is one with which one mostly agrees and there is not as much dispute as on previous occasions. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for how he has handled the queries and questions that have been raised. I still look forward to finding out the answer to my question about the police stopping an airborne aircraft—I hope he gets me a reply to that fairly quickly.
Like the hon. Member for North Down, I have now served on a number of Committees on which you have been the Chairman, Sir Nicholas, and I have always looked forward to your good humour and the way that you help those of us who are still parliamentary apprentices. We still sometimes fall foul of the rules, but I have always found you very tolerant, and I thank you for that.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank Committee members for those generous comments about me and my co-Chairman, Janet Anderson. I congratulate the ministerial team on the constructive and sensitive way that they dealt with important amendments to what is an important Bill for the people of Northern Ireland. I thank those who have ensured that our deliberations have been effectively and properly carried out—the police, the Doorkeepers, Hansard and, in particular, the Clerk of this Public Bill Committee. It was always useful to have him on my left to give me advice and help when necessary. This has been a good Committee.
I make a plea to the Government Whip, the governing party’s business manager. Although we have completed our deliberations well within the terms of the programme motion, business managers should not be led into reducing the time available for debate on important public Bills. We have finished within the available time because the Committee as a whole tackled the Bill constructively and sensibly. Ministers have listened and there has been no procrastination, delay or repetition.
I want to comment in particular on the performance of the hon. Member for Foyle, to whom I always love to listen when he waxes lyrical—as he frequently does. I am also grateful for the humour shown by everyone. The Committee, even if I say it from the Chair, has been an example that I hope will be followed often. I congratulate all Committee members on the role that they have played.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose at four minutes past Five o’clock.